The ACC has a lawsuit against Maryland. They filed first. Notice there aren't any allegations about the Big Ten or Maryland's involvement in wrongdoing in ACC realignment or any sort of thing.

Maryland and the Big Ten have publicly discussed how that realignment took place and reasons behind it and there just isn't anything there.

Maryland didn't increase a buyout to such high levels, or try to block someone from leaving a conference. They didn't withhold anyone's revenues. They didn't attempt to interfere with another conference to stop schools from changing conferences.

(03-26-2014 10:17 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  The ACC has a lawsuit against Maryland. They filed first. Notice there aren't any allegations about the Big Ten or Maryland's involvement in wrongdoing in ACC realignment or any sort of thing.

Maryland and the Big Ten have publicly discussed how that realignment took place and reasons behind it and there just isn't anything there.

Maryland didn't increase a buyout to such high levels, or try to block someone from leaving a conference. They didn't withhold anyone's revenues. They didn't attempt to interfere with another conference to stop schools from changing conferences.

Maybe you overlooked Maryland's counter suit with subpoenas being issued for discovery concerning any ACC communications with B1G schools.

Seems to me, that might provide a basis for discovery against the B1G to examine the communications between the B1G and Maryland.

Sauce for the goose and all that...

(03-26-2014 09:18 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  I sometimes use this tactic when defending former employees against corporate non-compete clauses, as an "unclean hands" argument.

If an employer was engaged in illegal or dishonest conduct, in which the employee did not want to participate, non-compete efforts for this reason usually fail. If the illegal or dishonest behavior was against clients, former employers are extremely reluctant to see such matters raised in publicly available Court papers. I think this is what UMD is attempting to do here - it is not quite extortion, but it is close.

The Unclean Hands Doctrine works in both directions. Maryland was a participant in all ACC actions since the conference was formed.

Correct, I meant the disclosure issue. I can't imagine ESPN is too keen on the public disclosure of documents/communications surrounding realignment and the detrimental effects on particular schools/conferences. It is a motivation for settlement IMHO.

(03-26-2014 10:53 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Correct, I meant the disclosure issue. I can't imagine ESPN is too keen on the public disclosure of documents/communications surrounding realignment and the detrimental effects on particular schools/conferences. It is a motivation for settlement IMHO.

Isn't that more ESPN's problem than the ACC, though?

(03-26-2014 08:20 AM)ren.hoek Wrote:  clay travis is delusional.

Have you ever seen Clay Travis' stuff before? Things like this? He has dude-like credibility: a major moron.

(03-26-2014 11:01 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:53 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  I can't imagine ESPN is too keen on the public disclosure of documents/communications surrounding realignment and the detrimental effects on particular schools/conferences. It is a motivation for settlement IMHO.

Isn't that more ESPN's problem than the ACC, though?

Yes, unless you take the view that ESPN can privately pressure the ACC into settling on less-than-optimal terms here. Does ESPN have the clout/power to do that? I readily admit I don't know, but… I doubt it.

(03-26-2014 11:15 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 11:01 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:53 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  I can't imagine ESPN is too keen on the public disclosure of documents/communications surrounding realignment and the detrimental effects on particular schools/conferences. It is a motivation for settlement IMHO.

Isn't that more ESPN's problem than the ACC, though?

Yes, unless you take the view that ESPN can privately pressure the ACC into settling on less-than-optimal terms here. Does ESPN have the clout/power to do that? I readily admit I don't know, but… I doubt it.

The cynical view: Maryland is stirring up a crock of in the hope that ESPN will sprinkle some money into this situation to make it go away. Maybe ESPN tells the ACC, take $26 million from Maryland and we'll add more than $26 million to your TV deal, so you'll make more in the end by settling now.

(03-26-2014 10:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:18 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  I sometimes use this tactic when defending former employees against corporate non-compete clauses, as an "unclean hands" argument.

If an employer was engaged in illegal or dishonest conduct, in which the employee did not want to participate, non-compete efforts for this reason usually fail. If the illegal or dishonest behavior was against clients, former employers are extremely reluctant to see such matters raised in publicly available Court papers. I think this is what UMD is attempting to do here - it is not quite extortion, but it is close.

The Unclean Hands Doctrine works in both directions. Maryland was a participant in all ACC actions since the conference was formed.

Why do you keep bringing up "Unclean Hands"? Most of Maryland's counterclaim was brought in Law not Equity.

Based off your previous posts I know you understand Maryland is subpoenaing ESPN to help establish a "Market", and also for PR points, you just do not think Maryland has much of a chance against the ACC in its antitrust case, presumably because such a claim has not prevailed before based on state sovereignty. You and I disagree, largely because I believe this case is different because of the size of the penal exit penalty and the words uttered by ACC officials right after it was voted on as to why they did it, which was to prevent teams from leaving instead of establishing reasonable damages. That is an illegal restriction of trade, in my opinion, as well being a penal liquidated damages provision.

Additionally, do you really think ESPN is dumb enough to have committed tortious interference against a conference, and if so, to be doubly dumb to leave evidence of such? Of course it is possible, but unlikely, in my opinion.

I just do not think any of the parties or ESPN, the B1G, SEC or any other conference has the skeletons in their closet like many posters here what to exist.

(03-26-2014 10:24 AM)CardinalZen Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:17 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  The ACC has a lawsuit against Maryland. They filed first. Notice there aren't any allegations about the Big Ten or Maryland's involvement in wrongdoing in ACC realignment or any sort of thing.

Maryland and the Big Ten have publicly discussed how that realignment took place and reasons behind it and there just isn't anything there.

Maryland didn't increase a buyout to such high levels, or try to block someone from leaving a conference. They didn't withhold anyone's revenues. They didn't attempt to interfere with another conference to stop schools from changing conferences.

Maybe you overlooked Maryland's counter suit with subpoenas being issued for discovery concerning any ACC communications with B1G schools.

Seems to me, that might provide a basis for discovery against the B1G to examine the communications between the B1G and Maryland.

Sauce for the goose and all that...

Maryland is raising the issues and seeking the discoveries in their countersuits. The ACC isn't seeking such things--likely because there isn't anything for them to seek. They know their involvement as opposed to Marylands in all this realignment within the ACC and in creating buyouts ets. They didn't bring it up in their lawsuit against Maryland. That is the point--if the ACC were concerned about Maryland's dealings other than trying to leave the ACC, they would already be seeking legal remedy for it.

(03-26-2014 11:56 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:18 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  I sometimes use this tactic when defending former employees against corporate non-compete clauses, as an "unclean hands" argument.

If an employer was engaged in illegal or dishonest conduct, in which the employee did not want to participate, non-compete efforts for this reason usually fail. If the illegal or dishonest behavior was against clients, former employers are extremely reluctant to see such matters raised in publicly available Court papers. I think this is what UMD is attempting to do here - it is not quite extortion, but it is close.

The Unclean Hands Doctrine works in both directions. Maryland was a participant in all ACC actions since the conference was formed.

Why do you keep bringing up "Unclean Hands"? Most of Maryland's counterclaim was brought in Law not Equity.

Based off your previous posts I know you understand Maryland is subpoenaing ESPN to help establish a "Market", and also for PR points, you just do not think Maryland has much of a chance against the ACC in its antitrust case, presumably because such a claim has not prevailed before based on state sovereignty. You and I disagree, largely because I believe this case is different because of the size of the penal exit penalty and the words uttered by ACC officials right after it was voted on as to why they did it, which was to prevent teams from leaving instead of establishing reasonable damages. That is an illegal restriction of trade, in my opinion, as well being a penal liquidated damages provision.

Additionally, do you really think ESPN is dumb enough to have committed tortious interference against a conference, and if so, to be doubly dumb to leave evidence of such? Of course it is possible, but unlikely, in my opinion.

I just do not think any of the parties or ESPN, the B1G, SEC or any other conference has the skeletons in their closet like many posters here what to exist.

Interested in your thoughts on the validity of the Big 12 bylaws as it relates to an exiting school as compared to the ACC's. As an example, this is part of the Big 12 bylaws:


excerpt:

Each of the Members agrees that Withdrawal of a Member contrary to its commitment to the Conference and the other Members pursuant to Section 3.1 above would cause damage and financial hardship to the Conference and the other Members without regard to the continued enforcement of the Grant of Rights Agreement, that the financial consequences to the Conference and its remaining Members cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time, and that the payment of the Buyout Amount is a reasonable method of compensating the Conference and the other Members for such damage and financial hardship and shall not be construed as a penalty.



You can find a source for this on the Big 12 website located here:

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.d...ID=1514844

(03-26-2014 11:56 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:18 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  I sometimes use this tactic when defending former employees against corporate non-compete clauses, as an "unclean hands" argument.

If an employer was engaged in illegal or dishonest conduct, in which the employee did not want to participate, non-compete efforts for this reason usually fail. If the illegal or dishonest behavior was against clients, former employers are extremely reluctant to see such matters raised in publicly available Court papers. I think this is what UMD is attempting to do here - it is not quite extortion, but it is close.

The Unclean Hands Doctrine works in both directions. Maryland was a participant in all ACC actions since the conference was formed.

Why do you keep bringing up "Unclean Hands"? Most of Maryland's counterclaim was brought in Law not Equity.

Based off your previous posts I know you understand Maryland is subpoenaing ESPN to help establish a "Market", and also for PR points, you just do not think Maryland has much of a chance against the ACC in its antitrust case, presumably because such a claim has not prevailed before based on state sovereignty. You and I disagree, largely because I believe this case is different because of the size of the penal exit penalty and the words uttered by ACC officials right after it was voted on as to why they did it, which was to prevent teams from leaving instead of establishing reasonable damages. That is an illegal restriction of trade, in my opinion, as well being a penal liquidated damages provision.

Additionally, do you really think ESPN is dumb enough to have committed tortious interference against a conference, and if so, to be doubly dumb to leave evidence of such? Of course it is possible, but unlikely, in my opinion.

I just do not think any of the parties or ESPN, the B1G, SEC or any other conference has the skeletons in their closet like many posters here what to exist.

I think that you misunderstand. I happen to agree with you.

What I am saying about "unclean hands" is that Maryland was a party to whatever "skeletons in the closet" that other posters think Maryland's subpoenas are going to magically uncover.

I, too, believe there are no such things nor will any evidence of tortious interference be discovered.

I am merely saying that, if the ACC was a "bad actor", so was Maryland, who actively participated in everything the ACC did (or allegedly did) up to the time it left the conference.

I have always thought that Maryland's discovery requests to be normal, routine stuff that will lead to....nothing much.

(03-26-2014 02:24 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 11:56 AM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 10:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 09:18 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  I sometimes use this tactic when defending former employees against corporate non-compete clauses, as an "unclean hands" argument.

If an employer was engaged in illegal or dishonest conduct, in which the employee did not want to participate, non-compete efforts for this reason usually fail. If the illegal or dishonest behavior was against clients, former employers are extremely reluctant to see such matters raised in publicly available Court papers. I think this is what UMD is attempting to do here - it is not quite extortion, but it is close.

The Unclean Hands Doctrine works in both directions. Maryland was a participant in all ACC actions since the conference was formed.

Why do you keep bringing up "Unclean Hands"? Most of Maryland's counterclaim was brought in Law not Equity.

Based off your previous posts I know you understand Maryland is subpoenaing ESPN to help establish a "Market", and also for PR points, you just do not think Maryland has much of a chance against the ACC in its antitrust case, presumably because such a claim has not prevailed before based on state sovereignty. You and I disagree, largely because I believe this case is different because of the size of the penal exit penalty and the words uttered by ACC officials right after it was voted on as to why they did it, which was to prevent teams from leaving instead of establishing reasonable damages. That is an illegal restriction of trade, in my opinion, as well being a penal liquidated damages provision.

Additionally, do you really think ESPN is dumb enough to have committed tortious interference against a conference, and if so, to be doubly dumb to leave evidence of such? Of course it is possible, but unlikely, in my opinion.

I just do not think any of the parties or ESPN, the B1G, SEC or any other conference has the skeletons in their closet like many posters here what to exist.

I think that you misunderstand. I happen to agree with you.

What I am saying about "unclean hands" is that Maryland was a party to whatever "skeletons in the closet" that other posters think Maryland's subpoenas are going to magically uncover.

I, too, believe there are no such things nor will any evidence of tortious interference be discovered.

I am merely saying that, if the ACC was a "bad actor", so was Maryland, who actively participated in everything the ACC did (or allegedly did) up to the time it left the conference.

I have always thought that Maryland's discovery requests to be normal, routine stuff that will lead to....nothing much.

Hey TerryD just a quick question, did ND follow the bylaws of the BE conference with their exit? If not, what breach did they commit?

(03-26-2014 04:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Hey TerryD just a quick question, did ND follow the bylaws of the BE conference with their exit? If not, what breach did they commit?

Notre Dame left under the terms of the "Pre-Nup", which provided for ND to leave with no exit fee.

(03-26-2014 05:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 04:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Hey TerryD just a quick question, did ND follow the bylaws of the BE conference with their exit? If not, what breach did they commit?

Notre Dame left under the terms of the "Pre-Nup", which provided for ND to leave with no exit fee.

so they followed the bylaws?

(03-26-2014 05:12 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 05:06 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 04:27 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Hey TerryD just a quick question, did ND follow the bylaws of the BE conference with their exit? If not, what breach did they commit?

Notre Dame left under the terms of the "Pre-Nup", which provided for ND to leave with no exit fee.

so they followed the bylaws?

It's complicated. They didn't follow the Big East Bylaws, but they followed the agreed-upon rules and procedures of the conference.

They followed the provisions of a separate document drawn up in 2005 providing for an eventual split of the conference between football and non-football schools, with Notre Dame as a third party who would be able to choose their affiliation. This document is popularly known as the Pre-Nup. The Pre-Nup was actually not mentioned in the Big East bylaws which became public as a result of the West Virginia lawsuits.

(03-26-2014 09:58 AM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-26-2014 06:51 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  I don't see how putting on the public record the ACC-ESPN dealings that led to the 2011 raid helps Maryland. I'm guessing it's a Samson strategy for Maryland, bringing down the temple on top of everyone.

This is what I was thinking. The ESPN issue would be liability for breaking its fiduciary responsibility to the Big East, since ESPN was a Big East partner and basically worked with the ACC to implode the Big East. But Maryland was a part of the ACC when all that happened. So Maryland would also be liable for any damages. Weird case.

Determining whether a fiduciary responsibility existed between the Big East and ESPN requires first defining the nature of their relationship.

If they were joint partners in the venture, then yes, there is a fiduciary responsibility between the parties. The BTN, which is jointly owned and operated by Fox and the Big 10, would be an example of this type of arrangement. Neither Fox nor the Big 10 can intentionally engage in conduct that devalues the other's stake in the project. ESPN airing Big East events on the it's own TV channel, I don't believe qualifies as that type of partnership.

If their relationship was more akin to that of a buyer/seller (the Big East being the seller of TV rights and ESPN being the buyer of TV rights), which would be my interpretation, then the responsibilities are limited to whatever has been contractually agreed upon. As long as ESPN was making its payments, airing the number of events agreed upon at agreed upon timeslots, dedicating the promised resources to production and promotion and doing whatever else was required of them by the contract, then they are fulfilling their end of the deal. Any other activities they engage in are immaterial and outside the scope of the partnership.

(03-26-2014 12:07 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  Interesting FOX blog on the Maryland/ACC lawsuit:

From the article:

Only one lawsuit is currently pending.

But, man oh man, is it a doozy.

On Friday came news that Maryland had sent detailed subpoenas to ten ACC schools, seeking information about their role in realignment. But that wasn't all, Maryland also subpoenaed ESPN, alleging, once more, that ESPN drove the ACC's realignment decisions. You probably haven't heard much about this lawsuit because ESPN doesn't write much about ESPN being involved in a lawsuit.

But back in January, when Maryland filed a $156.8 million counterclaim against the ACC, the school alleged the ACC's desire to expand was driven "in large part on counsel and direction that the conference received from ESPN." ESPN denied the allegation then, but now Maryland has stepped up the accusation and demanded documents consisting of "all communication with ESPN relating to the ACC’s broadcast rights, strategy meetings involving the integration of Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Notre Dame into the league, and contact with any Big Ten members about joining the ACC."

Oh, this could get really good.

A messy college divorce and a trial about that messy college divorce would be gold.

That's why it's in the best interests of both Maryland and the ACC to settle this lawsuit right now. Only, here's the deal, the ACC desperately needs to prove that its $52 million exit fee is valid. Why? Because there are other ACC schools that might leap at the opportunity to leave if that exit fee isn't as robust as we've been led to believe it is. If, for instance, the ACC came back to Maryland and said, "Okay, we'll take $26 million," this case would go away. But the ACC can't do that. It needs to prove that its willing to fight to keep schools in the conference and it needs to prove that the $52 million is enforeceable.

http://msn.foxsports.com/college-footbal...-nasty.php

I do not understand how any of this is relevant. Exactly what damages did Maryland suffer to initiate a 156 million lawsuit?

I wonder if the Maryland players would have voted to move the B1G?