(11-19-2013 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:48 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:39 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Still not sure how an NC court can force Maryland to pay anything. Yes, if Maryland is owed ACC monies and those monies flow through ACC offices in NC, then the ACC can withhold those payments to Maryland, but if those withheld payments fall short of the $52m, how can the NC judicial system enforce its order that the state of Maryland pay anything else should Maryland choose to ignore the judgment?

Quo - the amount owed is some $60-62 million. The reporters are sloppy as usual. The 3X is based on distributions that will have been made in FY 2013/14 and that fiscal year ends on June 1, 2014 for the ACC. MD noticed the ACC in late June of 2013, so that's why they owe for the current fiscal year. They should have noticed the ACC on May 31 of 2012.

I've never understood MD legal strategy - it seems to be one designed to maximize their exposure in NC - I don't know if it's arrogance or stupidity. The difference to UM for waiting 20 days to notice the ACC is the distribution amount difference times 3 and in this case it's about $2 million for a net of $6 million - I don't understand.

Anyway, wiser folks who have chased such dead-beat entities indicated that the Maryland Legislature needs to pass a bill to pay the amount that will be owed beyond what we hold.

The only other option the ACC has is to attempt to attach MD's money at the source - the NCAA for basketball units and future basketball payments to the B10, and the Big 10 itself. I suppose the ACC could get a judgment that would allow the league to take possession of Maryland's property when it enters the State of Virginia and NC. That would be extreme.

VT and UM have a joint Veterinarian Med School, I suppose the ACC could get a judgment against UM's part in Blacksburg -- that's also extreme.

The fiscal year is July 1-June 30. Maryland officially notified late June. So they're bound if so by last fiscal year.

No - the ACC fiscal year runs one month behind normal fiscal years.

look online.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...e/2366401/
The ACC's new tax return, provided by the conference in response to a request from USA TODAY Sports, also showed that for its fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, the ACC had $223.3 million in total revenue.

So sorry but you are wrong.

The ACC's Federal 990 fiscal year and it's revenue distribution fiscal year are different. The ACC does not collect/distribute funds in June. I meant to refer to the collection/distribution of revenue to the schools.

(11-19-2013 10:55 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:46 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:40 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Enforcement is going to be the issue. ACC would have collected about 32-35 million from Maryland, but how would they get the rest? If they have the courts freeze Maryland's transition to the B1G that means Louisville can't show up.

The only court that could freeze Maryland's transition to the B1G is a Maryland court. An NC court couldn't do that.

Why not? Maryland is bound to the ACC which is headquartered in NC. Why couldn't the league have an injunction placed on Maryland? That's what the Big East did to West Virginia.

That's what the Big East tried to do, but to no avail.

End of the day, cooler heads will prevail.

Why didn't that work? They got WV to pay 20 million which is way more than anyone else who left the BE.

West Virginia was leaving and there was nothing the Big East could do. Now the BE could sue for damages after they left. That's why WV settled for $20 million instead of going to trial and spending a bunch on attorney's fees for an uncertain outcome.

(11-19-2013 10:56 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:52 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:48 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:46 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:39 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Quo - the amount owed is some $60-62 million. The reporters are sloppy as usual. The 3X is based on distributions that will have been made in FY 2013/14 and that fiscal year ends on June 1, 2014 for the ACC. MD noticed the ACC in late June of 2013, so that's why they owe for the current fiscal year. They should have noticed the ACC on May 31 of 2012.

I've never understood MD legal strategy - it seems to be one designed to maximize their exposure in NC - I don't know if it's arrogance or stupidity. The difference to UM for waiting 20 days to notice the ACC is the distribution amount difference times 3 and in this case it's about $2 million for a net of $6 million - I don't understand.

Anyway, wiser folks who have chased such dead-beat entities indicated that the Maryland Legislature needs to pass a bill to pay the amount that will be owed beyond what we hold.

The only other option the ACC has is to attempt to attach MD's money at the source - the NCAA for basketball units and future basketball payments to the B10, and the Big 10 itself. I suppose the ACC could get a judgment that would allow the league to take possession of Maryland's property when it enters the State of Virginia and NC. That would be extreme.

VT and UM have a joint Veterinarian Med School, I suppose the ACC could get a judgment against UM's part in Blacksburg -- that's also extreme.

The fiscal year is July 1-June 30. Maryland officially notified late June. So they're bound if so by last fiscal year.

No - the ACC fiscal year runs one month behind normal fiscal years.

look online.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nca...e/2366401/
The ACC's new tax return, provided by the conference in response to a request from USA TODAY Sports, also showed that for its fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, the ACC had $223.3 million in total revenue.

So sorry but you are wrong.

The ACC's Federal 990 fiscal year and it's revenue distribution fiscal year are different. The ACC does not collect/distribute funds in June. I meant to refer to the collection/distribution of revenue to the schools.

According to this the ACC does distribute in June

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/bl...,full.post

(11-19-2013 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Still not sure how an NC court can force Maryland to pay anything. Yes, if Maryland is owed ACC monies and those monies flow through ACC offices in NC, then the ACC can withhold those payments to Maryland, but if those withheld payments fall short of the $52m, how can the NC judicial system enforce its order that the state of Maryland pay anything else should Maryland choose to ignore the judgment?

If push comes to shove, then at some point the ACC will ask the Maryland court system to "domesticate" the judicial orders entered in North Carolina. At that point, UM can explain to the Maryland courts why it believes that should not be done, and then the courts can make up their own mind. If Maryland decides to Not enforce a NC judgment, then of course the possibility is that NC will not enforce Maryland judgments, either. This could get very sticky for a lot of people.

My strong suspicion is that UM will have to pay the whole fee in its entirety, but we shall see.

The fiscal year is July-June. That's why Maryland withdrew in June. I mean do you really think they would be that stupid to withdraw after the new fiscal year started? Give me a break.

(11-19-2013 10:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:55 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:46 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The only court that could freeze Maryland's transition to the B1G is a Maryland court. An NC court couldn't do that.

Why not? Maryland is bound to the ACC which is headquartered in NC. Why couldn't the league have an injunction placed on Maryland? That's what the Big East did to West Virginia.

That's what the Big East tried to do, but to no avail.

End of the day, cooler heads will prevail.

Why didn't that work? They got WV to pay 20 million which is way more than anyone else who left the BE.

West Virginia was leaving and there was nothing the Big East could do. Now the BE could sue for damages after they left. That's why WV settled for $20 million instead of going to trial and spending a bunch on attorney's fees for an uncertain outcome.

Correct. I believe the Big East's tactics forced WV into making a decision they believed was better for them in the long run. They saw the BE wasn't going to go away quietly so WV decided to get it over with. Maryland doesn't want to go quietly, but the ACC hasn't tried to put an injunction on them to block them from going to the B1G either.

(11-19-2013 11:03 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:55 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:46 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Why not? Maryland is bound to the ACC which is headquartered in NC. Why couldn't the league have an injunction placed on Maryland? That's what the Big East did to West Virginia.

That's what the Big East tried to do, but to no avail.

End of the day, cooler heads will prevail.

Why didn't that work? They got WV to pay 20 million which is way more than anyone else who left the BE.

West Virginia was leaving and there was nothing the Big East could do. Now the BE could sue for damages after they left. That's why WV settled for $20 million instead of going to trial and spending a bunch on attorney's fees for an uncertain outcome.

Correct. I believe the Big East's tactics forced WV into making a decision they believed was better for them in the long run. They saw the BE wasn't going to go away quietly so WV decided to get it over with. Maryland doesn't want to go quietly, but the ACC hasn't tried to put an injunction on them to block them from going to the B1G either.

The 20 million and leaving that year is what WV was looking for all the time. The Big East hardly won that battle.

(11-19-2013 11:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 11:03 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:55 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  That's what the Big East tried to do, but to no avail.

End of the day, cooler heads will prevail.

Why didn't that work? They got WV to pay 20 million which is way more than anyone else who left the BE.

West Virginia was leaving and there was nothing the Big East could do. Now the BE could sue for damages after they left. That's why WV settled for $20 million instead of going to trial and spending a bunch on attorney's fees for an uncertain outcome.

Correct. I believe the Big East's tactics forced WV into making a decision they believed was better for them in the long run. They saw the BE wasn't going to go away quietly so WV decided to get it over with. Maryland doesn't want to go quietly, but the ACC hasn't tried to put an injunction on them to block them from going to the B1G either.

The 20 million and leaving that year is what WV was looking for all the time. The Big East hardly won that battle.

I'm not saying the BE won. They got WV to pay way more than the exit fee if they wanted to leave at that time.

(11-19-2013 10:52 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:46 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:40 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Enforcement is going to be the issue. ACC would have collected about 32-35 million from Maryland, but how would they get the rest? If they have the courts freeze Maryland's transition to the B1G that means Louisville can't show up.

The only court that could freeze Maryland's transition to the B1G is a Maryland court. An NC court couldn't do that.

Why not? Maryland is bound to the ACC which is headquartered in NC. Why couldn't the league have an injunction placed on Maryland? That's what the Big East did to West Virginia.

That's what the Big East tried to do, but to no avail.

End of the day, cooler heads will prevail.

Steve - the ACC is a real organization - it's not like the old Big East which was just a fly by night operation.

The ACC is a real organization, but that has nothing to do with their ability (or more appropriately, inability) to get an injunction. Maryland may have to pay money, but there is absolutely no way that the ACC would be able to obtain an injunction to force Maryland to stay in the conference. Courts will not apply injunctive relief when monetary damages would make the other party whole, and this entire exercise is completely about monetary damages.

(11-19-2013 11:02 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The fiscal year is July-June. That's why Maryland withdrew in June. I mean do you really think they would be that stupid to withdraw after the new fiscal year started? Give me a break.

Yes, Maryland has proven itself to be really stupid:

grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/bc/genrel/auto_pdf/2012-13/misc_non... ·

Section IV-5. Withdrawal of Members.
To withdraw from the conference a member must file an official notice of withdrawal with each of the conference members and the commissioner on or before August 15 for the withdrawal to be effective June 30 of the following year. Upon official notice of withdrawal, the member will be subject to a withdrawal payment, as liquidated damages, in an amount equal to one and one-quarter (1¼) times the total operating budget of the Conference (including any contingency included therein), approved in accordance with Section V-1 of the Conference Bylaws, which is in effect as of the date of the official notice of withdrawal. The Conference may offset the amount of such payment against any distributions otherwise due such member for any Conference year. Any remaining amount due shall be paid by the withdrawing member within 30 days after the effective date of withdrawal. The withdrawing member shall have no claim on the assets, accounts or income of the Conference. (Revised: September 2011)

Steve, this is a copy of the relevant bylaw before it was amended to 3 x.

The ACC has a set of rules that require a budget and certain budget actions to be taken in May. While MD noticed their exit before the end of the fiscal year that is used for federal accounting purposes, they did not get the exit in before the ACC adopted their 2013/14 budget. They could have done that easily and chose not to do that. Now I don't know what that budget says, but as you read the actual exit language you can see that waiting until the ACC had adopted another budget just needlessly exposed UM. That's my point. I don't know how the contingency changed or was changed or when that change might have been made effective.


The safest thing for UM to do was to notice no later than April before the ACC began it's budget process. To me, Maryland has approached the entire affair under the guise they would not have to pay anything. If Loh had kept his mouth shut, the ACC would have had no legal reason to withhold any of the current money - it was his mouth that put Swofford in his pocket. How much does UM lose by him saying early on they would not pay? At least $32 million - that a big chunk of money attributed to his mouth. So yes I think they are stupid. Don't you?

(11-19-2013 11:06 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 11:03 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:55 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  That's what the Big East tried to do, but to no avail.

End of the day, cooler heads will prevail.

Why didn't that work? They got WV to pay 20 million which is way more than anyone else who left the BE.

West Virginia was leaving and there was nothing the Big East could do. Now the BE could sue for damages after they left. That's why WV settled for $20 million instead of going to trial and spending a bunch on attorney's fees for an uncertain outcome.

Correct. I believe the Big East's tactics forced WV into making a decision they believed was better for them in the long run. They saw the BE wasn't going to go away quietly so WV decided to get it over with. Maryland doesn't want to go quietly, but the ACC hasn't tried to put an injunction on them to block them from going to the B1G either.

The 20 million and leaving that year is what WV was looking for all the time. The Big East hardly won that battle.

This is correct. This is pretty much what we thought we would pay from the start. Meatball was the one running his mouth saying they weren't going to settle and said we would be playing a Big East schedule in 2012. He was wrong on both accounts. That guy is an idiot.

The new budget would have been effective on July 1. Maryland notified prior to that.

(11-19-2013 11:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The new budget would have been effective on July 1. Maryland notified prior to that.

You are missing the point, Maryland waited until the ACC had started on new budget matters and could have made those matter effective immediately. You have to read section the V-I.


Section V-1. Conference Budget.
The Finance Committee, comprised of one representative from each member institution, shall participate with the Conference office staff and Commissioner in preparing the annual operating budget for the forthcoming year. Once this budget process is complete, the Committee will request that the Commissioner forward the final draft budget to the Executive Committee and all twelve (12) institutions for review at least two (2) weeks prior to the May meeting of the Conference. The Executive Committee will recommend the final budget for approval at that meeting. The Conference budget shall include a ten (10) percent contingency amount. (Editorial Revision: 2008)

By dragging it's feet past May, UM exposed itself to the ACC adopting a new budget early or making the new budget effective immediately. I don't know what they did this year, but UM was negligent in allowing the exposure - that's my point.

The point is- new budget or not, ACC knew they were going to be out of there. As long as you get out by the end of the fiscal year- which Maryland did- you are bound by that year's budget. ACC would look like a bloodthursty idiot if they tried to pull that crap.

frank - absolutely agree, the ACC would not be able to force them to stay, nor do i think they even want Md to stay. this is all about the benjamins.

i also thought it was interesting that the judges unanimously affirmed what i thought all along - that on each motion, all ACC schools are bound by the vote of the council of presidents regardless of whether they vote in favor of that motion. so Md's argument (and some internet "experts") that they shouldn't be held to the higher exit fee just because they did not vote for it seemed to be complete and utter nonsense legally. i'm an engineer, not a lawyer, but i can't fathom the chaos that would ensue if members were only bound by laws for which they voted.

the issue of whether the fee is punitive is an entirely different question.

(11-19-2013 11:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:52 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:46 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The only court that could freeze Maryland's transition to the B1G is a Maryland court. An NC court couldn't do that.

Why not? Maryland is bound to the ACC which is headquartered in NC. Why couldn't the league have an injunction placed on Maryland? That's what the Big East did to West Virginia.

That's what the Big East tried to do, but to no avail.

End of the day, cooler heads will prevail.

Steve - the ACC is a real organization - it's not like the old Big East which was just a fly by night operation.

The ACC is a real organization, but that has nothing to do with their ability (or more appropriately, inability) to get an injunction. Maryland may have to pay money, but there is absolutely no way that the ACC would be able to obtain an injunction to force Maryland to stay in the conference. Courts will not apply injunctive relief when monetary damages would make the other party whole, and this entire exercise is completely about monetary damages.

(11-19-2013 11:30 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The point is- new budget or not, ACC knew they were going to be out of there. As long as you get out by the end of the fiscal year- which Maryland did- you are bound by that year's budget. ACC would look like a bloodthursty idiot if they tried to pull that crap.

No Steve, it's not about what the ACC knows, and it's not about what's fair. It's about the law. What do law and fairness have in common?


All it takes to stick UM for $6 or so million extra dollars is to pass the budget in May and make it effectively immediately. That's child's play and I have seen it done numerous times. Local governments do this all the time, especially those that are changing summer recreation fees.

My point is that Maryland again took the risky path, not the prudent path.

show me ANY article that is saying that they are bound by this years budget. Not you saying it's so, but someone actually saying it......

(11-19-2013 10:46 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:40 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:25 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nc-appeal...e-continue


No appeal allowed to NC Supreme Court due to unanimous appeals court ruling. Of course, anyone in NC with any connection to the legal system knew that was coming.

Still not sure how an NC court can force Maryland to pay anything. Yes, if Maryland is owed ACC monies and those monies flow through ACC offices in NC, then the ACC can withhold those payments to Maryland, but if those withheld payments fall short of the $52m, how can the NC judicial system enforce its order that the state of Maryland pay anything else should Maryland choose to ignore the judgment?

Enforcement is going to be the issue. ACC would have collected about 32-35 million from Maryland, but how would they get the rest? If they have the courts freeze Maryland's transition to the B1G that means Louisville can't show up.

The only court that could freeze Maryland's transition to the B1G is a Maryland court. An NC court couldn't do that.

Why not? Maryland is bound to the ACC which is headquartered in NC. Why couldn't the league have an injunction placed on Maryland? That's what the Big East did to West Virginia.

An NC court would have no way to enforce its injunction. To get down to brass tacks, an NC court could not, e.g., stop a Maryland football team from boarding a plane in Maryland to fly to Ohio for a game vs Ohio State, could not prevent the B1G league office in Ohio from paying Maryland revenues, etc. It's reach does not extend beyond the boundaries of its state.

(11-19-2013 11:31 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  frank - absolutely agree, the ACC would not be able to force them to stay, nor do i think they even want Md to stay. this is all about the benjamins.

i also thought it was interesting that the judges unanimously affirmed what i thought all along - that on each motion, all ACC schools are bound by the vote of the council of presidents regardless of whether they vote in favor of that motion. so Md's argument (and some internet "experts") that they shouldn't be held to the higher exit fee just because they did not vote for it seemed to be complete and utter nonsense legally. i'm an engineer, not a lawyer, but i can't fathom the chaos that would ensue if members were only bound by laws for which they voted.

the issue of whether the fee is punitive is an entirely different question.

(11-19-2013 11:09 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:52 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:49 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:46 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Why not? Maryland is bound to the ACC which is headquartered in NC. Why couldn't the league have an injunction placed on Maryland? That's what the Big East did to West Virginia.

That's what the Big East tried to do, but to no avail.

End of the day, cooler heads will prevail.

Steve - the ACC is a real organization - it's not like the old Big East which was just a fly by night operation.

The ACC is a real organization, but that has nothing to do with their ability (or more appropriately, inability) to get an injunction. Maryland may have to pay money, but there is absolutely no way that the ACC would be able to obtain an injunction to force Maryland to stay in the conference. Courts will not apply injunctive relief when monetary damages would make the other party whole, and this entire exercise is completely about monetary damages.

I agree the ACC will not keep Maryland and does not want Maryland, but that does not prevent the ACC from screwing with Maryland if the votes are there. If UM has not paid the ACC the remaining $25-$30 million they owe by July 30th of next year, the ACC could easily for an injunction against UM playing football and file in a number of federal courts where the ACC and B10 are located. It wouldn't change anything in the long run but it can be done and the ACC can always fall back on the excuse that MD has not paid its bill.

(11-19-2013 10:47 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:43 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:40 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:30 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:25 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nc-appeal...e-continue


No appeal allowed to NC Supreme Court due to unanimous appeals court ruling. Of course, anyone in NC with any connection to the legal system knew that was coming.

Still not sure how an NC court can force Maryland to pay anything. Yes, if Maryland is owed ACC monies and those monies flow through ACC offices in NC, then the ACC can withhold those payments to Maryland, but if those withheld payments fall short of the $52m, how can the NC judicial system enforce its order that the state of Maryland pay anything else should Maryland choose to ignore the judgment?

Enforcement is going to be the issue. ACC would have collected about 32-35 million from Maryland, but how would they get the rest? If they have the courts freeze Maryland's transition to the B1G that means Louisville can't show up.

The only court that could freeze Maryland's transition to the B1G is a Maryland court. An NC court couldn't do that.

The ACC will use the 4th circuit in Richmond for that.

Good luck making a federal case out of one state enforcing a judgment against another state?