(06-17-2023 02:48 AM)Endless Purple Wrote: If they have an offer, then there is no reason to delay an exit notice. I'm guessing they do not have an offer, but a hope.
Agree with the other postings, there is no reason for the MWC to give in to them.
Perhaps the delay in announcing is because Klavikoff has said numerous times the PAC prefers to announce their media deal, then expansion. SDSU sent a letter to the league asking to negotiate their exit fee, including making installment payments. while notifying that they intend to retire from the league. That request was based on remarks Nevarez made to the press and having discussions of that sort. Someone decided to leak the letter, the MWC response and SDSU's response. MWC has said their initial letter was their official withdraw and SDSU said it wasn't. Doubtful it was SDSU that leaked any of those.
Reportedly, the PAC has assured SDSU that the June 30 "deadline" won't be an issue.
You are conflating the PAC announcing a media deal and SDSU announcing their exit from the MWC. A simple “No comment” keeps them separated.
And while you’re using the PAC wanting to announce the media deal before anything else happens as justification… you’re on these boards claiming to be an SDSU ad dept insider posting how much the media deal is going to be, who’s being invited and such. Seems as if you’re personally going against what the PAC wants. How do you square that up?
First, I never claimed to be an "Aztec ad dept insider" and if you can find where I ever said that, please do. I have sources that have generally had good insight into SDSU athletics." What I have posted regarding the PAC media deal was from a public meeting between Wazzu president Shultz and his bosses on WSU bduget, where he said he believes the media right deal will be essentially flat inititially. He also said he does not think it will be less. Given the PAC12 reported a media rights deal payout of $32.1M from their publicly reported P&L, flat tells me that the PAC will be looking at a minimum of $32.1M initially. I have heard that the deal may be in the range of $35M/school over 5-6 years. I have also said, repeatedly, that that part of the deal is being held very close to the vest however. But, numerous people have said that the PAC members are willing to sign a GOR if the numbers they have been told are formally presented. To answer the question before it is asked, no you don't do one without the other - they are tied together.
There is no way that SDSU sends that letter without the PAC's blessing. SDSU has very good resources to rely on and have used them for the past few years on the very subject of finances and expansion. The PAC wants their media deal by the end of the month as well. I I have said that SDSU will not wait until after June 30 to announce they are leaving. Here is a well thought out post from the Aztec board:
Quote:Saw these posted on another board and thought it was pretty accurate:
I've no idea what was signed when SDSU came back but it is implied that all members would abide by the bylaws (it is the organization's governing document) so I would doubt that there was a specific clause for that but I don't know for certain - it just seems redundant and unnecessary. Even if SDSU did sign something about abiding by the bylaws, I would be willing to wager it wouldn't have any impact on the matter at hand.
If it goes to court, I don't think it will, but if it does, the MW will argue that as a member of the conference SDSU is bound to the bylaws and thus owes the $17mm by next June. SDSU would likely counter with the fact that the bylaws were changed recently, that SDSU did not vote for the amendment (someone told me this but I haven't confirmed), and that the amendment was put in place to make it financially onerous for a member to freely leave thereby impeding a member's right to leave. Further, SDSU will likely claim it was done while SDSU and/or other member schools were involved in talks to leave.
It depends upon the judge and the state, but most judges don't view bylaw changes favorably particularly when they disadvantage members/shareholders and are made as a reactionary, defensive measure by the board. But you never know with any certainty how a judge will rule, I've had some who ruled against me where three months earlier under the exact same circumstances they ruled for the plaintiff.
I don't think this goes to court. Neither side really wants to, but SDSU is more motivated because it's $17mm for them vs $1.7mm for each remaining voting member so I think it gets negotiated down to something like $8-12mm paid over three years or something like that.
It is kind of funny to see posters get all worked up over this. It's just a business disagreement and those happen all of the time.
Courts are very reluctant to enforce contracts that say, "If you breach this contract, you must pay the other party $X." They strongly prefer that you prove that you suffered a certain amount of damages as a result of the breach and then sue for the amount of your losses. That's why schools almost never pay the full exit fee specified in a contract when they leave a conference. Maybe the contract says that the exit free is $17 million, but unless the conference can prove that they will lose $17 million because a school left the conference, a court will probably not enforce that contract."
I’m not really interested in posts from other boards. I’ll accept that you never claimed to have inside info from the ad at SDSU. But you still need to square up why SDSU would care if the MWC considers the letter as an announcement of departure if they are 100% guaranteed a landing spot as soon as the PAC’s media deal is done. And please don’t go with “the pac wants to announce their media deal,” because those aren’t the same thing.
(06-17-2023 02:48 AM)Endless Purple Wrote: If they have an offer, then there is no reason to delay an exit notice. I'm guessing they do not have an offer, but a hope.
Agree with the other postings, there is no reason for the MWC to give in to them.
Perhaps the delay in announcing is because Klavikoff has said numerous times the PAC prefers to announce their media deal, then expansion. SDSU sent a letter to the league asking to negotiate their exit fee, including making installment payments. while notifying that they intend to retire from the league. That request was based on remarks Nevarez made to the press and having discussions of that sort. Someone decided to leak the letter, the MWC response and SDSU's response. MWC has said their initial letter was their official withdraw and SDSU said it wasn't. Doubtful it was SDSU that leaked any of those.
Reportedly, the PAC has assured SDSU that the June 30 "deadline" won't be an issue.
You are conflating the PAC announcing a media deal and SDSU announcing their exit from the MWC. A simple “No comment” keeps them separated.
And while you’re using the PAC wanting to announce the media deal before anything else happens as justification… you’re on these boards claiming to be an SDSU ad dept insider posting how much the media deal is going to be, who’s being invited and such. Seems as if you’re personally going against what the PAC wants. How do you square that up?
First, I never claimed to be an "Aztec ad dept insider" and if you can find where I ever said that, please do. I have sources that have generally had good insight into SDSU athletics." What I have posted regarding the PAC media deal was from a public meeting between Wazzu president Shultz and his bosses on WSU bduget, where he said he believes the media right deal will be essentially flat inititially. He also said he does not think it will be less. Given the PAC12 reported a media rights deal payout of $32.1M from their publicly reported P&L, flat tells me that the PAC will be looking at a minimum of $32.1M initially. I have heard that the deal may be in the range of $35M/school over 5-6 years. I have also said, repeatedly, that that part of the deal is being held very close to the vest however. But, numerous people have said that the PAC members are willing to sign a GOR if the numbers they have been told are formally presented. To answer the question before it is asked, no you don't do one without the other - they are tied together.
There is no way that SDSU sends that letter without the PAC's blessing. SDSU has very good resources to rely on and have used them for the past few years on the very subject of finances and expansion. The PAC wants their media deal by the end of the month as well. I I have said that SDSU will not wait until after June 30 to announce they are leaving. Here is a well thought out post from the Aztec board:
Quote:Saw these posted on another board and thought it was pretty accurate:
I've no idea what was signed when SDSU came back but it is implied that all members would abide by the bylaws (it is the organization's governing document) so I would doubt that there was a specific clause for that but I don't know for certain - it just seems redundant and unnecessary. Even if SDSU did sign something about abiding by the bylaws, I would be willing to wager it wouldn't have any impact on the matter at hand.
If it goes to court, I don't think it will, but if it does, the MW will argue that as a member of the conference SDSU is bound to the bylaws and thus owes the $17mm by next June. SDSU would likely counter with the fact that the bylaws were changed recently, that SDSU did not vote for the amendment (someone told me this but I haven't confirmed), and that the amendment was put in place to make it financially onerous for a member to freely leave thereby impeding a member's right to leave. Further, SDSU will likely claim it was done while SDSU and/or other member schools were involved in talks to leave.
It depends upon the judge and the state, but most judges don't view bylaw changes favorably particularly when they disadvantage members/shareholders and are made as a reactionary, defensive measure by the board. But you never know with any certainty how a judge will rule, I've had some who ruled against me where three months earlier under the exact same circumstances they ruled for the plaintiff.
I don't think this goes to court. Neither side really wants to, but SDSU is more motivated because it's $17mm for them vs $1.7mm for each remaining voting member so I think it gets negotiated down to something like $8-12mm paid over three years or something like that.
It is kind of funny to see posters get all worked up over this. It's just a business disagreement and those happen all of the time.
Courts are very reluctant to enforce contracts that say, "If you breach this contract, you must pay the other party $X." They strongly prefer that you prove that you suffered a certain amount of damages as a result of the breach and then sue for the amount of your losses. That's why schools almost never pay the full exit fee specified in a contract when they leave a conference. Maybe the contract says that the exit free is $17 million, but unless the conference can prove that they will lose $17 million because a school left the conference, a court will probably not enforce that contract."
I’m not really interested in posts from other boards. I’ll accept that you never claimed to have inside info from the ad at SDSU. But you still need to square up why SDSU would care if the MWC considers the letter as an announcement of departure if they are 100% guaranteed a landing spot as soon as the PAC’s media deal is done. And please don’t go with “the pac wants to announce their media deal,” because those aren’t the same thing.
Because they do not have to announce they're leaving until June 30. One of the things the MWC will do, if they haven't done so yet, is remove SDSU's president from the MWC board.
(06-19-2023 01:09 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote: Perhaps the delay in announcing is because Klavikoff has said numerous times the PAC prefers to announce their media deal, then expansion. SDSU sent a letter to the league asking to negotiate their exit fee, including making installment payments. while notifying that they intend to retire from the league. That request was based on remarks Nevarez made to the press and having discussions of that sort. Someone decided to leak the letter, the MWC response and SDSU's response. MWC has said their initial letter was their official withdraw and SDSU said it wasn't. Doubtful it was SDSU that leaked any of those.
Reportedly, the PAC has assured SDSU that the June 30 "deadline" won't be an issue.
You are conflating the PAC announcing a media deal and SDSU announcing their exit from the MWC. A simple “No comment” keeps them separated.
And while you’re using the PAC wanting to announce the media deal before anything else happens as justification… you’re on these boards claiming to be an SDSU ad dept insider posting how much the media deal is going to be, who’s being invited and such. Seems as if you’re personally going against what the PAC wants. How do you square that up?
First, I never claimed to be an "Aztec ad dept insider" and if you can find where I ever said that, please do. I have sources that have generally had good insight into SDSU athletics." What I have posted regarding the PAC media deal was from a public meeting between Wazzu president Shultz and his bosses on WSU bduget, where he said he believes the media right deal will be essentially flat inititially. He also said he does not think it will be less. Given the PAC12 reported a media rights deal payout of $32.1M from their publicly reported P&L, flat tells me that the PAC will be looking at a minimum of $32.1M initially. I have heard that the deal may be in the range of $35M/school over 5-6 years. I have also said, repeatedly, that that part of the deal is being held very close to the vest however. But, numerous people have said that the PAC members are willing to sign a GOR if the numbers they have been told are formally presented. To answer the question before it is asked, no you don't do one without the other - they are tied together.
There is no way that SDSU sends that letter without the PAC's blessing. SDSU has very good resources to rely on and have used them for the past few years on the very subject of finances and expansion. The PAC wants their media deal by the end of the month as well. I I have said that SDSU will not wait until after June 30 to announce they are leaving. Here is a well thought out post from the Aztec board:
Quote:Saw these posted on another board and thought it was pretty accurate:
I've no idea what was signed when SDSU came back but it is implied that all members would abide by the bylaws (it is the organization's governing document) so I would doubt that there was a specific clause for that but I don't know for certain - it just seems redundant and unnecessary. Even if SDSU did sign something about abiding by the bylaws, I would be willing to wager it wouldn't have any impact on the matter at hand.
If it goes to court, I don't think it will, but if it does, the MW will argue that as a member of the conference SDSU is bound to the bylaws and thus owes the $17mm by next June. SDSU would likely counter with the fact that the bylaws were changed recently, that SDSU did not vote for the amendment (someone told me this but I haven't confirmed), and that the amendment was put in place to make it financially onerous for a member to freely leave thereby impeding a member's right to leave. Further, SDSU will likely claim it was done while SDSU and/or other member schools were involved in talks to leave.
It depends upon the judge and the state, but most judges don't view bylaw changes favorably particularly when they disadvantage members/shareholders and are made as a reactionary, defensive measure by the board. But you never know with any certainty how a judge will rule, I've had some who ruled against me where three months earlier under the exact same circumstances they ruled for the plaintiff.
I don't think this goes to court. Neither side really wants to, but SDSU is more motivated because it's $17mm for them vs $1.7mm for each remaining voting member so I think it gets negotiated down to something like $8-12mm paid over three years or something like that.
It is kind of funny to see posters get all worked up over this. It's just a business disagreement and those happen all of the time.
Courts are very reluctant to enforce contracts that say, "If you breach this contract, you must pay the other party $X." They strongly prefer that you prove that you suffered a certain amount of damages as a result of the breach and then sue for the amount of your losses. That's why schools almost never pay the full exit fee specified in a contract when they leave a conference. Maybe the contract says that the exit free is $17 million, but unless the conference can prove that they will lose $17 million because a school left the conference, a court will probably not enforce that contract."
I’m not really interested in posts from other boards. I’ll accept that you never claimed to have inside info from the ad at SDSU. But you still need to square up why SDSU would care if the MWC considers the letter as an announcement of departure if they are 100% guaranteed a landing spot as soon as the PAC’s media deal is done. And please don’t go with “the pac wants to announce their media deal,” because those aren’t the same thing.
Because they do not have to announce they're leaving until June 30. One of the things the MWC will do, if they haven't done so yet, is remove SDSU's president from the MWC board.
I looked at the calendar and June 30th is 9 days away. It’s not like it’s 3 months off, so that doesn’t make any sense. And why would SDSU care bout some MWC board when they’re 100% going to the PAC? That doesn’t make sense either. Sorry, not buying.
(06-19-2023 01:09 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote: Perhaps the delay in announcing is because Klavikoff has said numerous times the PAC prefers to announce their media deal, then expansion. SDSU sent a letter to the league asking to negotiate their exit fee, including making installment payments. while notifying that they intend to retire from the league. That request was based on remarks Nevarez made to the press and having discussions of that sort. Someone decided to leak the letter, the MWC response and SDSU's response. MWC has said their initial letter was their official withdraw and SDSU said it wasn't. Doubtful it was SDSU that leaked any of those.
Reportedly, the PAC has assured SDSU that the June 30 "deadline" won't be an issue.
You are conflating the PAC announcing a media deal and SDSU announcing their exit from the MWC. A simple “No comment” keeps them separated.
And while you’re using the PAC wanting to announce the media deal before anything else happens as justification… you’re on these boards claiming to be an SDSU ad dept insider posting how much the media deal is going to be, who’s being invited and such. Seems as if you’re personally going against what the PAC wants. How do you square that up?
First, I never claimed to be an "Aztec ad dept insider" and if you can find where I ever said that, please do. I have sources that have generally had good insight into SDSU athletics." What I have posted regarding the PAC media deal was from a public meeting between Wazzu president Shultz and his bosses on WSU bduget, where he said he believes the media right deal will be essentially flat inititially. He also said he does not think it will be less. Given the PAC12 reported a media rights deal payout of $32.1M from their publicly reported P&L, flat tells me that the PAC will be looking at a minimum of $32.1M initially. I have heard that the deal may be in the range of $35M/school over 5-6 years. I have also said, repeatedly, that that part of the deal is being held very close to the vest however. But, numerous people have said that the PAC members are willing to sign a GOR if the numbers they have been told are formally presented. To answer the question before it is asked, no you don't do one without the other - they are tied together.
There is no way that SDSU sends that letter without the PAC's blessing. SDSU has very good resources to rely on and have used them for the past few years on the very subject of finances and expansion. The PAC wants their media deal by the end of the month as well. I I have said that SDSU will not wait until after June 30 to announce they are leaving. Here is a well thought out post from the Aztec board:
Quote:Saw these posted on another board and thought it was pretty accurate:
I've no idea what was signed when SDSU came back but it is implied that all members would abide by the bylaws (it is the organization's governing document) so I would doubt that there was a specific clause for that but I don't know for certain - it just seems redundant and unnecessary. Even if SDSU did sign something about abiding by the bylaws, I would be willing to wager it wouldn't have any impact on the matter at hand.
If it goes to court, I don't think it will, but if it does, the MW will argue that as a member of the conference SDSU is bound to the bylaws and thus owes the $17mm by next June. SDSU would likely counter with the fact that the bylaws were changed recently, that SDSU did not vote for the amendment (someone told me this but I haven't confirmed), and that the amendment was put in place to make it financially onerous for a member to freely leave thereby impeding a member's right to leave. Further, SDSU will likely claim it was done while SDSU and/or other member schools were involved in talks to leave.
It depends upon the judge and the state, but most judges don't view bylaw changes favorably particularly when they disadvantage members/shareholders and are made as a reactionary, defensive measure by the board. But you never know with any certainty how a judge will rule, I've had some who ruled against me where three months earlier under the exact same circumstances they ruled for the plaintiff.
I don't think this goes to court. Neither side really wants to, but SDSU is more motivated because it's $17mm for them vs $1.7mm for each remaining voting member so I think it gets negotiated down to something like $8-12mm paid over three years or something like that.
It is kind of funny to see posters get all worked up over this. It's just a business disagreement and those happen all of the time.
Courts are very reluctant to enforce contracts that say, "If you breach this contract, you must pay the other party $X." They strongly prefer that you prove that you suffered a certain amount of damages as a result of the breach and then sue for the amount of your losses. That's why schools almost never pay the full exit fee specified in a contract when they leave a conference. Maybe the contract says that the exit free is $17 million, but unless the conference can prove that they will lose $17 million because a school left the conference, a court will probably not enforce that contract."
I’m not really interested in posts from other boards. I’ll accept that you never claimed to have inside info from the ad at SDSU. But you still need to square up why SDSU would care if the MWC considers the letter as an announcement of departure if they are 100% guaranteed a landing spot as soon as the PAC’s media deal is done. And please don’t go with “the pac wants to announce their media deal,” because those aren’t the same thing.
Because they do not have to announce they're leaving until June 30. One of the things the MWC will do, if they haven't done so yet, is remove SDSU's president from the MWC board.
Why would SDSU care if there President is removed from a board when they are leaving the MW? Makes no sense. Try again!
(06-22-2023 03:36 PM)templefootballfan Wrote: isn't that how Maryland got their exit fee reduced.
they claimed they did not vote for higher exit fee,
MD & ACC settled before it went to court
They didn't "claim"... It was on record, Maryland had voted against the ACC GoR. They were the only school that did so, and so got over-ruled by the other members. Then, when they were seeking to be released from the conference they sought to have a court make the GoR not binding on them...which they probably would have won.
(06-22-2023 03:36 PM)templefootballfan Wrote: isn't that how Maryland got their exit fee reduced.
they claimed they did not vote for higher exit fee,
MD & ACC settled before it went to court
They didn't "claim"... It was on record, Maryland had voted against the ACC GoR. They were the only school that did so, and so got over-ruled by the other members. Then, when they were seeking to be released from the conference they sought to have a court make the GoR not binding on them...which they probably would have won.
The Terrapins must be thanking God that they got out of the ACC when they did.
(06-22-2023 03:36 PM)templefootballfan Wrote: isn't that how Maryland got their exit fee reduced.
they claimed they did not vote for higher exit fee,
MD & ACC settled before it went to court
They didn't "claim"... It was on record, Maryland had voted against the ACC GoR. They were the only school that did so, and so got over-ruled by the other members. Then, when they were seeking to be released from the conference they sought to have a court make the GoR not binding on them...which they probably would have won.
Maryland was not a part of the GOR
Maryland voted to leave the ACC in Nov of 2012 and the ACC did not vote to implement a GOR until April of 2013
what the dispute related to was the ACC voting to increase their exit fee from $25 million to $50 million
Unless I heard wrong, SDSU sent the letter making it known they planned to leave and asked for the extensions. The MWC rejected it. SDSU said it wasn't an official exit letter. MWC said yes it was and they were planning on them leaving.
If all that's correct, I know the MWC did it because they were upset with SDSU. But I think they made the wrong move. They should have said, OK. It's not an official letter. Then when SDSU finally does officially want to go, you've got them for the higher payout. As it is, if you truly are saying today is their last day, then they only have to pay the smaller payout because they gave enough notice.
Pete Thamel
Source: San Diego State is expected to deliver a notice to the Mountain West today that it will not withdraw from the league, as the school previously stated it intended to do. San Diego State plans to move forward as part of the Mountain West.
I swear I've seen this Seinfeld episode....where George quits--then shows up again and acts like he never did.
(This post was last modified: 06-30-2023 03:17 PM by f1do.)
LOL
I'm sure they're just being safe. I'll be interested to see if they just stay longer when they do leave to avoid the higher fee or if they just pay the higher fee and bail out the MWC's bad decision.
This makes me wonder, though, if the PAC has indicated that perhaps they won't expand if they are able to keep the remaining 10 together. If those 10 don't make more money with SDSU and/or anyone else, that's definitely a possibility.
This is going to drag out forever. Hope everyone's popcorn is still fresh!
/
Aztecs officially headed... somewhere else
