Does the Louisville agreement with the AAC set a legal precedent?

Louisville is paying $11 million to leave the AAC with 1-year notice. That is ~5.5 times the AAC annual payout (~2 million). The ACC annual payout is $20 million. 5.5 times that would be $110 million. Looks like Maryland is already getting a 50% discount on the exit fee.

Louisville is leaving the Big East with notice given a year before it was actually announced (as per the request of the conference commissioner & board chair), not the AAC with 1-year notice.

When Rutgers agreement comes out that will be more comparable, Rutgers gave no heads up. Louisville informed the Big East long before the AAC was thought of.

(11-15-2013 10:45 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  Louisville is leaving the Big East with notice given a year before it was actually announced (as per the request of the conference commissioner & board chair), not the AAC with 1-year notice.

Louisville is leaving the American. The American is the contractual continuation of the old Big East.

(11-16-2013 10:53 AM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(11-15-2013 10:45 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  Louisville is leaving the Big East with notice given a year before it was actually announced (as per the request of the conference commissioner & board chair), not the AAC with 1-year notice.

Louisville is leaving the American. The American is the contractual continuation of the old Big East.

My point was that Louisville's notice was not given a short time ago to the American; we notified the Big East that we were leaving 2 years ago.

The notice isn't the issue or the question. The question is does Louisville's 5.5x exit fee set a precedent that would apply to the Maryland suit?

(11-16-2013 11:27 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  My point was that Louisville's notice was not given a short time ago to the American; we notified the Big East that we were leaving 2 years ago.

Read the actual legal settlement.

Official, written notice was given to the American Athletic conference on December 7th, 2012.

The verbal notice we gave the Big East was essentially worthless since the bylaws stipulated that a withdrawing member had to provide written notice of its intent to withdraw from the conference (we did not do this until Dec 7th, 2012).

(11-16-2013 11:56 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  The notice isn't the issue or the question. The question is does Louisville's 5.5x exit fee set a precedent that would apply to the Maryland suit?

Louisville is rich while Maryland is poor if not already bankrupted. You just cannot squeeze blood off the stone. Maryland has no money that is why they left ACC in the first place. Bogieman lured them with candy.

(11-16-2013 11:56 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  The notice isn't the issue or the question. The question is does Louisville's 5.5x exit fee set a precedent that would apply to the Maryland suit?

Why would it? Louisville's situation is based on a legal agreement with a different conference. IF Louisville was leaving the ACC then it could establish precedent, but even then, not necessarily.

There is no way that Maryland pays more than the $52 million (unless they get tagged for legal fees as well).

(11-16-2013 11:56 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  The notice isn't the issue or the question. The question is does Louisville's 5.5x exit fee set a precedent that would apply to the Maryland suit?

No. Louisville's exit fee was spelled out in an agreement signed by and agreed to by the University in 2011 when the new members were added to the then Big East. Louisville then paid the agreed upon $10 million, plus 20% of the 0.5 early termination clause for leaving a year early (was a two year agreement). Maryland did not agree to the increase in exit fee and accepted an invitation to a new conference shortly thereafter. Apples and Oranges situations.

IMO, UofL did set a precedent........

on how to exit a conference properly.

Followed all the rules and very thankful for the opportunity.

Given the opportunity to make things stinky, UofL took the high road.

(11-16-2013 12:38 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(11-16-2013 11:27 AM)Cardinals Wrote:  My point was that Louisville's notice was not given a short time ago to the American; we notified the Big East that we were leaving 2 years ago.

Read the actual legal settlement.

Official, written notice was given to the American Athletic conference on December 7th, 2012.

The verbal notice we gave the Big East was essentially worthless since the bylaws stipulated that a withdrawing member had to provide written notice of its intent to withdraw from the conference (we did not do this until Dec 7th, 2012).

I don't know how you can say it was essentially worthless, when it apparently saved us millions in our departure to the ACC. Had we not notified the Big East verbally a year before the official announcement was made, would the result have been the same? I argue that it would not have been.

(11-18-2013 05:06 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  I don't know how you can say it was essentially worthless, when it apparently saved us millions in our departure to the ACC. Had we not notified the Big East verbally a year before the official announcement was made, would the result have been the same? I argue that it would not have been.

The verbal notification didn't save us a penny on the early exit fees. What saved us money on the early exit penalty was the fact that we agreed to pay the $10 million dollar exit penalty and not drag the conference into the courtroom (link).

How do I know the verbal notification was worthless aside from the fact that the settlement document states on page 1 that notice was given on Dec 7th, 2012? Simple logic. Let's say that you are right and that the verbal notice given in October 2011 actually meant something. What would our total exit cost be?

Exit fees were raised from $5 million to $10 million in November of 2012. If the verbal notice we gave in October of 2011 meant anything, then our exit fees should have been only $5 million dollars since notice would have been served before the increase. The fact that our fee is $10 million tell you that notice had to have been given AFTER the exit fee was increased in November 2012. In other words, the verbal notice was worthless in determining the exit fee.

Furthermore, the early exit penalty is only applied to schools who vacate the conference before the 27 month timer elapses. If the verbal notice we gave in October of 2011 meant anything, then our early exit fee would be $0 dollars because the 27 month timer would have already be satisfied (October 2011 to July 2014 is 32 months). The fact that we are paying an early exit fee at all tells you that the 27 month timer would not have elapsed by our planned exit date. In other words, the verbal notice was worthless in determining whether we would pay an early exit fee or not.

The verbal notice might have built some goodwill and made the conference more amicable towards settling out of court, but other than that, it didn't really accomplish anything.

(11-18-2013 05:40 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 05:06 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  I don't know how you can say it was essentially worthless, when it apparently saved us millions in our departure to the ACC. Had we not notified the Big East verbally a year before the official announcement was made, would the result have been the same? I argue that it would not have been.

The verbal notification didn't save us a penny on the early exit fees. What saved us money on the early exit penalty was the fact that we agreed to pay the $10 million dollar exit penalty and not drag the conference into the courtroom (link).

How do I know the verbal notification was worthless aside from the fact that the settlement document states on page 1 that notice was given on Dec 7th, 2012? Simple logic. Let's say that you are right and that the verbal notice given in October 2011 actually meant something. What would our total exit cost be?

Exit fees were raised from $5 million to $10 million in November of 2012. If the verbal notice we gave in October of 2011 meant anything, then our exit fees should have been only $5 million dollars since notice would have been served before the increase. The fact that our fee is $10 million tell you that notice had to have been given AFTER the exit fee was increased in November 2012. In other words, the verbal notice was worthless in determining the exit fee.

Furthermore, the early exit penalty is only applied to schools who vacate the conference before the 27 month timer elapses. If the verbal notice we gave in October of 2011 meant anything, then our early exit fee would be $0 dollars because the 27 month timer would have already be satisfied (October 2011 to July 2014 is 32 months). The fact that we are paying an early exit fee at all tells you that the 27 month timer would not have elapsed by our planned exit date. In other words, the verbal notice was worthless in determining whether we would pay an early exit fee or not.

The verbal notice might have built some goodwill and made the conference more amicable towards settling out of court, but other than that, it didn't really accomplish anything.

We voted for the increase of the exit fee after we gave notice. The bylaws allow for negotiation of all $ above the set exit fee amount. The NJ judge sent Rutgers' lawsuit to RI because of this fact.

By not giving written notice, TJ was doing what was in the best interest of the conference. I wonder what would have happened in court if John Marinatto took the stand about the day Jurich gave notice? Aresco had to have been briefed on this. The verbal notice carried the potential of legal weight if UofL had chosen to pursue it.

(11-18-2013 06:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  We voted for the increase of the exit fee after we gave notice.

I'm not sure we actually cast a vote either way. If you recall, there was a lot of speculation at the time that WVU and UofL would not participate in the meeting and would abstain from casting a vote due to the fact that both were looking to join the Big 12 (conflict of interest).

(11-18-2013 06:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  By not giving written notice, TJ was doing what was in the best interest of the conference.

Agreed.

(11-18-2013 06:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I wonder what would have happened in court if John Marinatto took the stand about the day Jurich gave notice? Aresco had to have been briefed on this. The verbal notice carried the potential of legal weight if UofL had chosen to pursue it.

He would have been asked what the bylaws required.

Answer: "Written notice which includes the intended date of departure"

Then he would have been asked if Louisville was aware of the bylaw stating that formal notice had to be made in writing.

Answer: "Yes, they were"

Then he would have been asked if Louisville filed a written notice in accordance with the conference's bylaw?

Answer: "No they did not"

Now Louisville could have argued that it would have filed written notice but chose not to at the request of the league. Because the league pressed it into not filing, the oral notice should have the same weight as written notice stipulated by the bylaws. That is a pretty flimsy legal argument for a number of reasons (e.g. UofL had no other offers on the table and would have been unlikely to actually leave without one, Louisville's membership in the American was not threatened, etc) and almost certainly would not have held up in court. I suppose they could have tried it anyway if they wanted.

(11-18-2013 07:39 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 06:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  We voted for the increase of the exit fee after we gave notice.

I'm not sure we actually cast a vote either way. If you recall, there was a lot of speculation at the time that WVU and UofL would not participate in the meeting and would abstain from casting a vote due to the fact that both were looking to join the Big 12 (conflict of interest).

(11-18-2013 06:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  By not giving written notice, TJ was doing what was in the best interest of the conference.

Agreed.

(11-18-2013 06:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I wonder what would have happened in court if John Marinatto took the stand about the day Jurich gave notice? Aresco had to have been briefed on this. The verbal notice carried the potential of legal weight if UofL had chosen to pursue it.

He would have been asked what the bylaws required.

Answer: "Written notice which includes the intended date of departure"

Then he would have been asked if Louisville was aware of the bylaw stating that formal notice had to be made in writing.

Answer: "Yes, they were"

Then he would have been asked if Louisville filed a written notice in accordance with the conference's bylaw?

Answer: "No they did not"

Now Louisville could have argued that it would have filed written notice but chose not to at the request of the league. Because the league pressed it into not filing, the oral notice should have the same weight as written notice stipulated by the bylaws. That is a pretty flimsy legal argument for a number of reasons (e.g. UofL had no other offers on the table and would have been unlikely to actually leave without one, Louisville's membership in the American was not threatened, etc) and almost certainly would not have held up in court. I suppose they could have tried it anyway if they wanted.

I have not seen one comment from any current AAC school, or MWC school that could have been an AAC school, that disputes the details of Jurich giving notice.

He told everyone. Short of holding a press conference, our notice/intentions could not have been more explicit and implied.

A press conference announcing our exit would have seriously harmed the Big East/AAC. So much so, it could be argued, that the AAC might not even exist today. Both Cincy. and UConn could have joined the BE in Basketball and all other sports and gone indy in football.

Instead, you have UCF in a BCS Bowl.

(11-18-2013 08:14 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I have not seen one comment from any current AAC school, or MWC school that could have been an AAC school, that disputes the details of Jurich giving notice.

I don't know how to make it any easier for you to understand Dasville. The Big East bylaws clearly stipulated that a withdrawing member a) provide written notice of its intent to withdraw from the conference and b) specify an effective date of withdrawal. If you don't believe me, you can read it for yourself in the Big East vs WVU lawsuit (page 23, 11.02 Withdrawal from Membership, article a, subsection i and 11.02, article b).

Had the bylaws just said "notice", then any form of notification would suffice (oral, written, electronic). That isn't what the bylaws; they very clearly state that notification has to be written AND that a date has to be specified. In other words, a verbal declaration that school school x will leave the conference at some future unspecified date does not satisfy the notice requirements specified in the bylaws of the conference. It was classy gesture on Jurich's part to let everyone else in the conference know what UofL's intentions were. But letting everyone know you want to leave and actually filing a legal document with signature and a specified exit date are two completely different things.

(11-18-2013 08:14 PM)Dasville Wrote:  He told everyone. Short of holding a press conference, our notice/intentions could not have been more explicit and implied.

Again, a declaration of intent is not equivalent to providing written notice. When a school provides written notice to the conference, it is reclassified as a withdrawal member. Per the Big East bylaws, a withdrawing member gives up its right to vote, participate in conference meetings, hold positions on conference boards, etc. Again, it is right in the legal brief if you want to read it.

If Louisville had given notice in October of 2011, then they would have been classified as a withdrawing member per the Big East bylaws. In other words, they would not have been able to do things like second the motion to admit Temple into the Big East conference in February of 2012 (link) or been members of the Big East Board of Directors in 2012 (link).

The fact that UofL didn't provide written notice meant that they still retained all the rights and privileges that a member in good standing was due. In other words, the verbal notification Jurich gave the conference didn't mean anything other than it was a nice gesture to his fellow ADs. Furthermore, if you assertion that Jurich actually voted for the increased fees is correct, then you've pretty much proven that UofL was not considered a withdrawing member and that adequate notice had not been provided (they still had voting writes).

(11-18-2013 08:14 PM)Dasville Wrote:  A press conference announcing our exit would have seriously harmed the Big East/AAC.

Press conference still don't satisfy the terms specified in the bylaws. If you read the WVU lawsuit, you'll see that WVU still filed written notice on the same day they held their press conference (you can read the actual written notice of withdrawal on page 28).

(11-18-2013 07:39 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(11-18-2013 06:31 PM)Dasville Wrote:  We voted for the increase of the exit fee after we gave notice.

I'm not sure we actually cast a vote either way.

Louisville did cast a vote. In fact, Louisville was one of the teams that held up expansion because we voted against adding Boise St. So were definitely involved and all voted for and signed the agreement. This I remember well. Thus the verbal notice did, without a doubt, unquestionably, without further discussion influence the early exit penalty fee from being reduced from the $5 million we agreed to (as we agreed to be there for two years) to the $1 million we actually paid.

(11-19-2013 01:16 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Louisville did cast a vote. In fact, Louisville was one of the teams that held up expansion because we voted against adding Boise St. So were definitely involved and all voted for and signed the agreement.

Do you have an actual link to prove this? The only thing I could find on the web said that Louisville was not planning to cast a vote on the exit fees (example).

The reason I say this is because the conference didn't need WVU and UofL to vote yes in order to raise the exit fees (exit fees can be raised by a 3/4 vote of all directors present). If Louisville was actually planning to leave, there would have been no incentive to vote yes for an increase exit fee.

(11-19-2013 01:16 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  This I remember well. Thus the verbal notice did, without a doubt, unquestionably, without further discussion influence the early exit penalty fee from being reduced from the $5 million we agreed to (as we agreed to be there for two years) to the $1 million we actually paid.

That doesn't actually prove that the verbal notice did anything to influence the early exit penalty nor does change the fact that the Big East bylaws linked above clearly state that written notification is required. Furthermore, if that American chose to accept the verbal notification as a justification for lowering Louisville's exit fee penalties, then I would imagine that that would hurt them greatly in their lawsuit with Rutgers. Part of that lawsuit contends that the conference chose to enforce penalties and bylaws arbitrarily and allowing verbal notice to serve in place of written notice would be rather arbitrary.

The fact that Jurich was open and honest with the conference might have made the conference more inclined to negotiate a better settlement (they also probably didn't want a third lawsuit to deal with). I'm not disputing that fact. What I am disputing is whether the verbal notice given in October 2011 fulfilled the bylaws of the Big East and whether it would have been upheld in court.

(11-19-2013 02:05 PM)UofLgrad07 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 01:16 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Louisville did cast a vote. In fact, Louisville was one of the teams that held up expansion because we voted against adding Boise St. So were definitely involved and all voted for and signed the agreement.

Do you have an actual link to prove this? The only thing I could find on the web said that Louisville was not planning to cast a vote on the exit fees (example).

The reason I say this is because the conference didn't need WVU and UofL to vote yes in order to raise the exit fees (exit fees can be raised by a 3/4 vote of all directors present). If Louisville was actually planning to leave, there would have been no incentive to vote yes for an increase exit fee.

(11-19-2013 01:16 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  This I remember well. Thus the verbal notice did, without a doubt, unquestionably, without further discussion influence the early exit penalty fee from being reduced from the $5 million we agreed to (as we agreed to be there for two years) to the $1 million we actually paid.

That doesn't actually prove that the verbal notice did anything to influence the early exit penalty nor does change the fact that the Big East bylaws linked above clearly state that written notification is required. Furthermore, if that American chose to accept the verbal notification as a justification for lowering Louisville's exit fee penalties, then I would imagine that that would hurt them greatly in their lawsuit with Rutgers. Part of that lawsuit contends that the conference chose to enforce penalties and bylaws arbitrarily and allowing verbal notice to serve in place of written notice would be rather arbitrary.

The fact that Jurich was open and honest with the conference might have made the conference more inclined to negotiate a better settlement (they also probably didn't want a third lawsuit to deal with). I'm not disputing that fact. What I am disputing is whether the verbal notice given in October 2011 fulfilled the bylaws of the Big East and whether it would have been upheld in court.

Well, Maryland is arguing against that point in red.