https://www.cbssports.com/college-footba...r-reports/

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...plans-exit

I'm guessing they have verbal offers from the Pac & Big 12 depending on what kind of deal is reached and whether Colorado makes a move.

Kinda weird that they are asking for a favor to give them one more month? If I were the MWC, I'd be saying.............you got to be kidding me!!!

(06-16-2023 02:47 PM)CoogPaw Wrote:  Kinda weird that they are asking for a favor to give them one more month? If I were the MWC, I'd be saying.............you got to be kidding me!!!

If they have offers from both then there is no reason for delay. Is giving notice now an advantage over waiting a couple weeks?

According to Dellenger, SDSU has until June 30 to officially let the Mountain West know that it is leaving the conference. If the school makes the deadline, the exit fee will be around $17 million, whereas the fee doubles if it is late.

SDSU would like the deadline moved to July and wants to discuss the conference lowering its exit fee. However, the Aztecs’ later clarified to the conference that its first notification was not an official withdrawal. The Mountain West is not expected to grant the school’s exit deadline extension request, Dellenger reports.

(06-16-2023 02:47 PM)CoogPaw Wrote:  Kinda weird that they are asking for a favor to give them one more month? If I were the MWC, I'd be saying.............you got to be kidding me!!!

Yeah, don't see what is in it for the MWC.

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.

This ask shows the exact oposite of the headline. They are not officially headed anywhere.

The actions seem to support this scenario. They think they will get an offer but perhaps not by 6/30/23 and perhaps not at all. They want the MW to let them out for $17 million if they get an offer and not $34 (after 6/30/23). And to cover their arses they want to be able to stay if they get no offer.

The MW is doing the right thing by telling them to FO!

Louisville did the same thing to the AAC. Basically saying that they think they're the top pick of the G5'ers and they've got their bags packed and are ready to go.

Luckily for Louisville their gamble paid off when B1G took Maryland.

they should just go ahead and put in their transfer notice and save some bucks.
it's not like the MWC wouldn't take them back in a heartbeat if the plans didnt fall through so its a no brainer. and if they tried to add on some stipulations the AAC would take them so SDSU holds all the cards and should just put it in anyways.

"Dear Wife,

I intend to divorce you and move in with my mistress, but I don't know the exact date. While I'm figuring that out, are you cool with me staying at the house for a couple of months until we find a place to live?

Also, can you do me a favor and not ask for too much alimony whenever I do get around to divorcing you?"

-San Diego State University (probably)

SDSU is in the transfer portal.

Accepting visits, haven't received a committable offer yet but has a good relationship with the recruiting coordinator.

They have the ability to take their name out of the portal but returning is super awkward because he already abandoned his teammates.

Hell in handbasket?

(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.

(06-19-2023 07:43 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  SDSU is in the transfer portal.

Accepting visits, haven't received a committable offer yet but has a good relationship with the recruiting coordinator.

They have the ability to take their name out of the portal but returning is super awkward because he already abandoned his teammates.

please respect their decision

(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.

And this is what worries me. I am not a fan at all of our President Dictator de La Torre...But she can't be bad enough to leave without an offer...Could she?

------------

With this news, we must all remember that La Dictator de La Torre has always been a Pac 10/12 student/employee/wanna be her entire adult life. She has claimed in interview that 2 or 3 of the Pac 12 President are good friends with her.

My thought is...There is nothing in writing at all about the Aztecs being invited. Probably everything has been hashed and re-hashed between the Pac and the Aztecs. de La Torre being so close to some Pac Presidents and with LOVE (blind) of the Pac probably has a very strong verbal from the Presidents of the Pac that we will be invited when the TV deal is announced.

She must really trust her friends in the Pac 12 to make this huge announcement.

(06-19-2023 10:56 PM)SteveAztec Wrote:  

(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.

And this is what worries me. I am not a fan at all of our President Dictator de La Torre...But she can't be bad enough to leave without an offer...Could she?

------------

With this news, we must all remember that La Dictator de La Torre has always been a Pac 10/12 student/employee/wanna be her entire adult life. She has claimed in interview that 2 or 3 of the Pac 12 President are good friends with her.

My thought is...There is nothing in writing at all about the Aztecs being invited. Probably everything has been hashed and re-hashed between the Pac and the Aztecs. de La Torre being so close to some Pac Presidents and with LOVE (blind) of the Pac probably has a very strong verbal from the Presidents of the Pac that we will be invited when the TV deal is announced.

She must really trust her friends in the Pac 12 to make this huge announcement.

If she really knows SDSU will be invited, then there is no reason to ask for a delay in the exit notice?

(06-19-2023 07:43 AM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  SDSU is in the transfer portal.

Accepting visits, haven't received a committable offer yet but has a good relationship with the recruiting coordinator.

They have the ability to take their name out of the portal but returning is super awkward because he already abandoned his teammates.

can they take their name out of the portal? maybe. but, and maybe its just posturing, the mwc is making noise that it considers sdsu gone.

in any case, what a Cluster F*#^ - just a part of the whole PAC soap opera

(06-19-2023 01:09 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(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?

(06-20-2023 02:20 PM)Johnny Incognito Wrote:  

(06-19-2023 01:09 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(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."