(11-19-2013 12:39 PM)bullet Wrote:  I'm beginning to think there is some possibility this goes to court even though neither side wants it. Ego could stand in the ACC's way. For Maryland, it could be risk-reward. If the ACC has withheld $35 million and can't get more than $52 million, while Maryland thinks they should pay $20 million or less, they may let it go forward. If the ACC had only withheld $20 million, it would be very risky for Maryland to let it continue.

Still think it most likely settles in the next few months. Its already gone further than any of the others.

The problem is that Maryland can't win because they moved to the B10 - the defeated their own claim. The only issue at the bar was the question over the ACC charter and bylaws and if they are valid and enforceable. No other legal action has commenced so UM or the ACC will have to go to Federal court in order to address anything beyond the amount withheld. That issue is not even ripe.

(11-19-2013 11:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  No way ESPN wants this going to court. Discovery would be a ***** for both of them.

That would be fun, wouldn't it? We could look forward to the transcripts of the testimony of Delany, Swofford, and ESPN executives being leaked to the internet, along with a few interesting emails.

C'mon, guys, don't settle, let it happen. Twitter and the message boards need the material.

(11-19-2013 12:43 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 11:48 AM)stever20 Wrote:  No way ESPN wants this going to court. Discovery would be a ***** for both of them.

That would be fun, wouldn't it? We could look forward to the transcripts of the testimony of Delany, Swofford, and ESPN executives being leaked to the internet, along with a few interesting emails.

C'mon, guys, don't settle, let it happen. Twitter and the message boards need the material.

Memories would become poor

(11-19-2013 12:40 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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:  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.

The argument Maryland could make on that issue, but I haven't heard it, is that they should have been given an appropriate amount of time to reject the change in the by-laws by leaving. The by-laws do have a default of it applying to the next July 1. The proposal made it effective immediately.

Now this is business law, not consumer law, but there are consumer protection laws that, while consumers agree to be bound by credit card agreements, they have a certain amount of time to reject changes.

There could conceivably be some common law concepts that would say that Maryland could reject the increase by leaving in a reasonable period of time. But like I said, I haven't heard them make that particular argument. They may be avoiding that because they are making the case that even the $20 million is excessive. Or there may not be any case law supporting that.

You make an excellent point regarding Maryland's inaction at the time of the change. When the motion was made, Maryland should have injected and either noticed an exit or noticed the potential of an exit over the raised fee. The fact that they did not and acquiesce kills them. Unlike most parties, Maryland would be considered a sophisticated player and properly represented by counsel at the time of the vote.

They themselves showed the amount not to be excessive by moving the B10 despite a potential liability of $50-60 million.

It's the poor political and legal action by Maryland that I find so stunning and so difficult to accept. UM could have done more to protect itself and to make it's position look better.

This is where Maryland made arguably their biggest mistake. They ran their mouths about how great the B1G and how much more money they were going to make, they took away most of their arguing points.

Jamin' - yes MD's mouth has been their greatest enemy. Loh's ego must the size of the Delmarva.

(11-19-2013 11:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

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

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?

Resolving disputes between states is almost precisely the reason that the federal courts were created in the first place.

(11-19-2013 11:49 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  You notice how the B1G is staying as far away from this as possible. They know there's a lot of dirt on their hands and they don't want the public to know.

Delaney on whether BIG will help cover MD's exit costs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-ten-move/

Quote:Delany reiterated the comments he made during an interview last November about Maryland’s ongoing legal battle with the ACC over its roughly $52 million exit fee. Asked whether the Big Ten would help cover costs, Delany simply replied, “No.”

(11-19-2013 12:59 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 11:49 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  You notice how the B1G is staying as far away from this as possible. They know there's a lot of dirt on their hands and they don't want the public to know.

Delaney on whether BIG will help cover MD's exit costs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-ten-move/

Quote:Delany reiterated the comments he made during an interview last November about Maryland’s ongoing legal battle with the ACC over its roughly $52 million exit fee. Asked whether the Big Ten would help cover costs, Delany simply replied, “No.”

He would have been a fool to say otherwise and he's not dumb. The travel "subsidy" is to help pay MD's bills.

At the end of the day MD must do what's best for MD. However, I can't help but wonder if the other B10 members expect MD and Loh to handle things like this, creating such a large turd. All Loh had to do was say - "we will pay what we owe" and then shut his mouth.

What Loh has done leads to one of two conclusions - Loh was stupid and could not control his mouth, or the B10 wanted Loh to run his mouth in an effort destabilize the ACC.

(11-19-2013 01:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:59 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 11:49 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  You notice how the B1G is staying as far away from this as possible. They know there's a lot of dirt on their hands and they don't want the public to know.

Delaney on whether BIG will help cover MD's exit costs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-ten-move/

Quote:Delany reiterated the comments he made during an interview last November about Maryland’s ongoing legal battle with the ACC over its roughly $52 million exit fee. Asked whether the Big Ten would help cover costs, Delany simply replied, “No.”

He would have been a fool to say otherwise and he's not dumb. The travel "subsidy" is to help pay MD's bills.

At the end of the day MD must do what's best for MD. However, I can't help but wonder if the other B10 members expect MD and Loh to handle things like this, creating such a large turd. All Loh had to do was say - "we will pay what we owe" and then shut his mouth.

What Loh has done leads to one of two conclusions - Loh was stupid and could not control his mouth, or the B10 wanted Loh to run his mouth in an effort destabilize the ACC.

You hit on another point. I wonder how much the Maryland move was really to destabilize the ACC....to shake UNC and UVA--or even Notre Dame loose.

Does Loh survive this crap storm? I suspect not.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

(11-19-2013 12:59 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 11:49 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  You notice how the B1G is staying as far away from this as possible. They know there's a lot of dirt on their hands and they don't want the public to know.

Delaney on whether BIG will help cover MD's exit costs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-ten-move/

Quote:Delany reiterated the comments he made during an interview last November about Maryland’s ongoing legal battle with the ACC over its roughly $52 million exit fee. Asked whether the Big Ten would help cover costs, Delany simply replied, “No.”

The Big Ten has already agreed to a $20-30 million as a travel subsidy for Maryland. Not Rutgers, but Maryland, which is less than 200 miles away from Penn State. Out of the entire Big Ten, only Maryland needs a one-time travel subsidy, which by the way, just so happens to be in the range of what has been estimated as either a negotiated settlement and/or could be withheld in disbursements. Maybe it is for travel, or maybe it is for "travel".

ding! ding! ding! we have a winner!

delaney failed to get UNC and UVa on the first round. The rutgers invite is the evidence of this. so they fell back to a md/rutgers combo, spread propaganda about gawdy revenue projections, which may or may not come to fruition and do not account for the ACC's increasing market value (i.e. demographics, tv footprint). all this in hopes that UNC and UVa would jump ship in a panic.

i could be wrong, but it sounds logical.

(11-19-2013 01:10 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 01:05 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:59 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 11:49 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  You notice how the B1G is staying as far away from this as possible. They know there's a lot of dirt on their hands and they don't want the public to know.

Delaney on whether BIG will help cover MD's exit costs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-ten-move/

Quote:Delany reiterated the comments he made during an interview last November about Maryland’s ongoing legal battle with the ACC over its roughly $52 million exit fee. Asked whether the Big Ten would help cover costs, Delany simply replied, “No.”

He would have been a fool to say otherwise and he's not dumb. The travel "subsidy" is to help pay MD's bills.

At the end of the day MD must do what's best for MD. However, I can't help but wonder if the other B10 members expect MD and Loh to handle things like this, creating such a large turd. All Loh had to do was say - "we will pay what we owe" and then shut his mouth.

What Loh has done leads to one of two conclusions - Loh was stupid and could not control his mouth, or the B10 wanted Loh to run his mouth in an effort destabilize the ACC.

You hit on another point. I wonder how much the Maryland move was really to destabilize the ACC....to shake UNC and UVA--or even Notre Dame loose.

(11-19-2013 01:13 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:59 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 11:49 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  You notice how the B1G is staying as far away from this as possible. They know there's a lot of dirt on their hands and they don't want the public to know.

Delaney on whether BIG will help cover MD's exit costs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-ten-move/

Quote:Delany reiterated the comments he made during an interview last November about Maryland’s ongoing legal battle with the ACC over its roughly $52 million exit fee. Asked whether the Big Ten would help cover costs, Delany simply replied, “No.”

The Big Ten has already agreed to a $20-30 million as a travel subsidy for Maryland. Not Rutgers, but Maryland, which is less than 200 miles away from Penn State. Out of the entire Big Ten, only Maryland needs a one-time travel subsidy, which by the way, just so happens to be in the range of what has been estimated as either a negotiated settlement and/or could be withheld in disbursements. Maybe it is for travel, or maybe it is for "travel".

This is definitely for "travel". Maryland is using it to stay afloat while the ACC is withholding distributions.

(11-19-2013 12:49 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:40 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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:  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.

The argument Maryland could make on that issue, but I haven't heard it, is that they should have been given an appropriate amount of time to reject the change in the by-laws by leaving. The by-laws do have a default of it applying to the next July 1. The proposal made it effective immediately.

Now this is business law, not consumer law, but there are consumer protection laws that, while consumers agree to be bound by credit card agreements, they have a certain amount of time to reject changes.

There could conceivably be some common law concepts that would say that Maryland could reject the increase by leaving in a reasonable period of time. But like I said, I haven't heard them make that particular argument. They may be avoiding that because they are making the case that even the $20 million is excessive. Or there may not be any case law supporting that.

You make an excellent point regarding Maryland's inaction at the time of the change. When the motion was made, Maryland should have injected and either noticed an exit or noticed the potential of an exit over the raised fee. The fact that they did not and acquiesce kills them. Unlike most parties, Maryland would be considered a sophisticated player and properly represented by counsel at the time of the vote.

They themselves showed the amount not to be excessive by moving the B10 despite a potential liability of $50-60 million.

It's the poor political and legal action by Maryland that I find so stunning and so difficult to accept. UM could have done more to protect itself and to make it's position look better.

This is where Maryland made arguably their biggest mistake. They ran their mouths about how great the B1G and how much more money they were going to make, they took away most of their arguing points.

That's totally irrelevant. The question is whether the ACC is making more or less along with the validity of the exit fee. The ACC is making more than at the time Maryland left.

One thing that would be interesting if this goes to court would be to see the TV contracts ESPN has with the ACC. The Pac 12 contract came out in the O'Bannon suit.

(11-19-2013 12:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Jamin' - yes MD's mouth has been their greatest enemy. Loh's ego must the size of the Delmarva.

Yes, Loh has a big mouth, and he is both sneaky and devious to boot. He recently tried to sell UMD's golf course to private developers without competitive bidding or public notification and feedback. Presumably this was done to finance either the exit fee or the projected $85 million in athletic department upgrades Loh recently said was required.

(11-19-2013 01:13 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Does Loh survive this crap storm? I suspect not.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

No

(11-19-2013 01:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:49 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:40 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:32 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(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.

The argument Maryland could make on that issue, but I haven't heard it, is that they should have been given an appropriate amount of time to reject the change in the by-laws by leaving. The by-laws do have a default of it applying to the next July 1. The proposal made it effective immediately.

Now this is business law, not consumer law, but there are consumer protection laws that, while consumers agree to be bound by credit card agreements, they have a certain amount of time to reject changes.

There could conceivably be some common law concepts that would say that Maryland could reject the increase by leaving in a reasonable period of time. But like I said, I haven't heard them make that particular argument. They may be avoiding that because they are making the case that even the $20 million is excessive. Or there may not be any case law supporting that.

You make an excellent point regarding Maryland's inaction at the time of the change. When the motion was made, Maryland should have injected and either noticed an exit or noticed the potential of an exit over the raised fee. The fact that they did not and acquiesce kills them. Unlike most parties, Maryland would be considered a sophisticated player and properly represented by counsel at the time of the vote.

They themselves showed the amount not to be excessive by moving the B10 despite a potential liability of $50-60 million.

It's the poor political and legal action by Maryland that I find so stunning and so difficult to accept. UM could have done more to protect itself and to make it's position look better.

This is where Maryland made arguably their biggest mistake. They ran their mouths about how great the B1G and how much more money they were going to make, they took away most of their arguing points.

That's totally irrelevant. The question is whether the ACC is making more or less along with the validity of the exit fee. The ACC is making more than at the time Maryland left.

One thing that would be interesting if this goes to court would be to see the TV contracts ESPN has with the ACC. The Pac 12 contract came out in the O'Bannon suit.

No you are wrong. This premise is based on conferences being capped in size. The ACC is not capped at 14. The loss of Maryland is a unique loss not replaced by Louisville.

(11-19-2013 10:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  Awful lot of homer reading here.

They refused Maryland's effort to dismiss the lawsuit. That merely means the lawsuit continues. It says nothing about the outcome of the lawsuit. What Maryland requested was routine. And it routinely gets rejected.

Yep

(11-19-2013 01:13 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Does Loh survive this crap storm? I suspect not.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

Wallace Loh and Brit Kirwan (current Chancellor of UMD System and former OSU president) have convinced the Maryland legislature that CIC membership will bring in all sorts of financial benefits and will spring UMD into a top 20 research institution.

(11-19-2013 01:24 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 12:50 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Jamin' - yes MD's mouth has been their greatest enemy. Loh's ego must the size of the Delmarva.

Yes, Loh has a big mouth, and he is both sneaky and devious to boot. He recently tried to sell UMD's golf course to private developers without competitive bidding or public notification and feedback. Presumably this was done to finance either the exit fee or the projected $85 million in athletic department upgrades Loh recently said was required.

Maryland has real and systemic financial management problems that go back several decades. What was tossed in Debbie Yow's face was the tip of a rotten financial iceberg. For whatever reason, fund raising in all aspects of UM are low, and have been low for decades. Support iin the State of MD is not what it should be. The cost of room and board at UM for instance is shocking compared to other public schools.

Perhaps Loh feels he has to be sneaky to solve these problems, but as near as I can tell, all he has managed to do is create hostility within and outside the academy. He was culturally out of place for UM in the first place, but I guess as long ole Mary Sue at Michigan was willing to vouch for him he was okay. He's neither a southern or an easterner and now he has a hold of Maryland.