(07-07-2014 06:28 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote: (07-07-2014 12:35 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote: (07-06-2014 07:58 PM)cuseroc Wrote: (07-06-2014 07:47 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote: (07-02-2014 10:39 PM)IceJus10 Wrote: Right, but if they were to not settle and a judge were to rule a sports conference's contracts can not be enforced on a departed member; ie you withheld their payments for two years and they've left, you cannot further punish a member after exiting -- then that could be used as precedent for another member to announce their departure, have their withholdings held while they wait to exit and then leave... and as they are leaving sue to reclaim their rights under that precedent of ongoing penalty.
No contract is unbreakable, just as the Titanic wasn't unsinkable, despite all the state-of-the-art protections it had.
1. UMD did not break any "contract" by leaving the ACC. Members can leave any conference at will. That's why there are bylaws delineating the steps to follow when withdrawing from the conference.
When MD announced they would not pay the exit fee they were in breach and their secret negotiations with the B10 was a fiduciary breach with the ACC. This breach would include talks with Penn State.
2. It is unlawful to deter a school from leaving, and unlawful to punish a team for leaving. "Exit fees" are liquidated damages, which must be a reasonable estimation of the monetary damages caused by a departing member. This a vulnerability for the ACC. The $52 million fee was calculated by multiplying the conference operating budget by three. (in no way is this a reasonable estimation of damages)
The ACC has always followed revenue and cost sharing. The loss of UNC or FSU would be in the $100 million range. The loss of WF perhaps $20 million - the formula is a fair and even way of estimating the loss.
3. UMD will not settle. They want discovery in order to expose that the conference got wind of their (UMD's) discussions with the B1G, and immediately moved to block their departure with a huge, daunting exit fee. (not legal) Among all of the ACC schools, there are many personal relationships between the UMD administration and other schools. (think FSU) UMD lawyers probably already know exactly where to look in the email records to find damaging language about "making them pay", etc. Will the ACC be able to produce documentation of their deliberations to estimate damages when selecting $52 million as the proper exit fee?
You don't understand discovery outside a textbook. Funny how things get lost and memories degrade.
4. In their suit the ACC asked the court to do two things: declare the exit fee valid, and order UMD to pay it. If the court declares the fee invalid, there is no exit fee. It doesn't revert to the previous amount. It becomes $0.00. That's what UMD is shooting for.
You don't understand NC courts do you?
5. UMD isn't too concerned about legal fees. their State's Attorney is representing them.
UMD has it's own lawyers on the case in order to protect Loh and Kirwan, etc. It's not all on the MD AG.
A SHORT PAUSE FOR THE CONSPIRACY THEORY: UMD hopes to prove a pattern of behavior by the conference of punitive, spiteful activity, not just the exit fee, but also the withholding of money, the scheduling bias, and the exclusion from conference meetings while UMD was still a member-in-good-standing.
(Dont hold your breath)
This is also why they have subpoenaed records from all of the schools and ESPN. They want those parties, especially ESPN, to feel vulnerable about the GoR being an illegal restraint against teams moving out of the ACC. Much of the validity of the GoR may be undermined if discovery provides evidence that the contract was established, not for business expedience and ease of future planning, but simply to lock teams in to the ACC. The "intentions" of the conference could cloud the legality of the GoR. Beyond this, if discovery provides evidence that ESPN and the ACC attempted to "poach" those two B1G schools in order to damage, or injure the B1G, in retaliation, that may be unlawful too.
And it such correspondence my show MD and the B10 tampering after ND decided to move.
6. Has the ACC subpoenaed documents for discovery from UMD and the B1G? I don't think so. I am guessing that they want to avoid all discovery. They are dragging their feet on compliance with UMD subpoenas.
Why pay yet for what you don't need. MD is the one needing documents, not the ACC.
7. Settle in for a looooong trial. I predict a directed verdict in favor of UMD. That will NOT make me happy, but this is an objective view.
Let me know when you are admitted to the NC Bar then I will give your opinion some credence.
You sound like an attorney involved in this case or someone with intimate details as to what is going on.
No, he doesn't.
cuse, I don't understand discovery outside of the internet. I'm not a lawyer, but from the very beginning, have thought the exit fee increase was fishy. I am, I suppose, a pessimist at heart. I think these are real vulnerabilities for the conference. I acknowledge that the case is not a slam dunk; I've seen plenty of posts representing the upside of the case for the ACC. None has been able to erase the obvious (to me) punitive nature of the ACC's response to UMD.
If they want to leave, let them go. They're entitled to go. Instead, we have this bitter legal fight.
There is nothing punitive about the ACC's response. Loh said in public when that MD was not going to pay what it owed the ACC. Loh gave notice of the exit with his press conference that was held with the B10.
At that point the ACC has the following:
1. A member that have publically announced it was leaving and not paying what it owed, and
2. A member that did not return any attempt at communication with the ACC office or other presidents, and
3. A member that did something other than what they had told their counterparts they we going to do, and
4. Had a member potentially revealing the ACC's strategies to the B10.
Now, how was the ACC punitive? The bylaws allow for MD to be declared suspended (or whatever the term) with a 3/4 vote. The bylaws also allow for that member not in good standing to have it's revenue withheld.
What MD was entitled to was to follow the ACC's constitution and bylaws as they had for the prior 60 years, as they had accepted all the checks that came with that association for 60 years.
If MD did not like the increase to 3X for an exit fee, they could have noticed an exit at the time it came up - they could have said - we don't like this and will leave in the future because of that. FSU could have done the same. Instead both went along with the program, enjoying the benefits as well as the costs of conference membership.
Kirwan wanted to move UM at any cost, and he did. He sold his board on the notion that UM would not pay anything to move.
I would compare this to signing a lease in a shopping center for 20 years at $2,000 a month. If there is not out clause, you are going to pay the rent for the remainder of the contract, even if you move to another location. There are big boxes all over America just like this.
When your case is bad, you hire politically related attorneys in NC. Case in point, UM is using the firm of which Senator Kay Hagen's husband is a member to represent UM in NC. And when it comes to discovery in NC, sometimes things just don't exist anymore but in folks' minds. And memories in NC can become faulty.
