Oh my... Just insane... Grabs popcorn
I can't believe the two sides haven't moved closer to a settlement yet. Rutgers and the AAC have settled all but officially at this point.
This is embarrassing. Someone call Dr. Phil.
Can we have a restraining order against the kooks at U-MD's administration? Gosh
Going to get interesting. Maryland has been here since 1953 and knows where the bodies are buried.
I don't think UMD will ever be required to pay the full $52M but at this point I hope they're required to pay $200M just because I want them to write FSU a fat check.
(02-08-2014 12:05 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ]This is embarrassing. Someone call Dr. Phil.
Embarrassment is <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< less significant than the money and every thing else that's at stake.
No one's going to throw their case in over embarrassment.
I don't think it's a coincidence that Pitt Chancellor Nordenburg is retiring..... j/k!
They are really getting desperate in College Park. A car wash is a good way to raise funds.....bake sale....they are going to need a lot of money.
(02-07-2014 11:57 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I can't believe the two sides haven't moved closer to a settlement yet. Rutgers and the AAC have settled all but officially at this point.
theres a lot bigger money, egos and hurt feelings involved here than what Rutgers had to deal with in escaping the American
(02-08-2014 07:49 AM)cuseroc Wrote: [ -> ] (02-07-2014 11:57 PM)brista21 Wrote: [ -> ]I can't believe the two sides haven't moved closer to a settlement yet. Rutgers and the AAC have settled all but officially at this point.
theres a lot bigger money, egos and hurt feelings involved here than what Rutgers had to deal with in escaping the American
Yep. Somebody has the "big head".
![[Image: Office-Space-Bobbleheads-Peter-Mr.-Lumbe...Milton.jpg]](http://www.geekalerts.com/u/Office-Space-Bobbleheads-Peter-Mr.-Lumbergh-and-Milton.jpg)
After reading the article, Maryland appears to be really stretching. Their counter-suit is not really theirs to make, it is the B1G's so this could get thrown out on and issue of standing. Next, Maryland's claim that Pitt and Wake tried to poach schools from the B1G opens a large can of worms in that the B1G DID poach a school from the ACC:
1) this opens up a counter-counter-claim and based on Maryland's claim of treble damages, Maryland could conceivably be facing another suit worth more than $450MM (it won't happen, but the ACC attorneys will assure the court that if Maryland is allowed to proceed, they will have to file such an action);
2) Maryland does not appear to have subpoenaed Wakes documents, which weakens their claims (though this may simply be administrative and it is forthcoming);
3) Every B1G school allegedly a target of the Pitt/Wake Poaching will have to disclose all of their documents;
4) Maryland will have to disclose of their documents (which they are fighting to keep away from the ACC if I recall)
5) Maryland will increase its legal fees exponentially on a risky claim (they may be going for the scorched earth policy but the risk here is causing costs for allies (B1G schools) and alienating them as well as opponents (ACC schools))
6) Ultimately, they may perturb everyone enough that no one wants them (ACC has already agreed to release the and the B1G could conclude that they are more work than worth!)
7) This action still does not waive their duty to pay an exit fee. Maryland already agreed to the prior exit fee (around 1-1.5 years of TV revenue) which was done before the increase to three years of revenue. The prior exit fees was agreed to unanimously. Maryland will have to pay that amount regardless of any other outcomes. (Yes, if Maryland should win more than they owe, the amount they win will be decreased by what they owe.)
In short, this looks frivolous and a waste in time and money. A court can penalize Maryland if they agree! A good court will force attorneys to resolve the differences and will not usually allow nonsense like this to go too far forward (they have to allow some preliminary work to verify it is useless and not likely to succeed).
Whoever is running UMD has to be seriously questioned in his/her ability to reason and resolve issues. UMD's actions look more like a two year old's temper tantrum than adults moving on with life.
(02-08-2014 04:58 AM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 12:05 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ]This is embarrassing. Someone call Dr. Phil.
Embarrassment is <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< less significant than the money and every thing else that's at stake.
No one's going to throw their case in over embarrassment.
From the perspective of a UMCP alumnus, sure it's embarrassing. My position has been from day one that UMCP had the opportunity to leave the ACC before the vote took place but didn't; so it should just pay the $52 million fee and move on.
Also, B1G supposedly gave UMCP $30 million - imo, disguised as a travel subsidy - to cover payment of the increase in the exit fee. So I don't understand what he sticking point is, unless UMCP president Loh believes that exit fee should be zero.
(02-08-2014 12:22 AM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ]Going to get interesting. Maryland has been here since 1953 and knows where the bodies are buried.
Wonder how many of those bodies "Lefty" put there
(02-08-2014 09:37 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 04:58 AM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 12:05 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ]This is embarrassing. Someone call Dr. Phil.
Embarrassment is <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< less significant than the money and every thing else that's at stake.
No one's going to throw their case in over embarrassment.
From the perspective of a UMCP alumnus, sure it's embarrassing. My position has been from day one that UMCP had the opportunity to leave the ACC before the vote took place but didn't; so it should just pay the $52 million fee and move on.
Also, B1G supposedly gave UMCP $30 million - imo, disguised as a travel subsidy - to cover payment of the increase in the exit fee. So I don't understand what he sticking point is, unless UMCP president Loh believes that exit fee should be zero.
By saying that Maryland had the opportunity to leave the ACC before the vote took place, you are essentially saying they could have walked away with no immediate conference alternative, and paid more than $20 million for that right. That's not a choice, that's extortion. IMO, by voting against the increase and then acting quickly to secure an alternative conference home prior to the date when the changed exit fee should have taken effect according to league rules and precedent, Maryland should be subject to the exit fee that they had previously agreed to.
I believe Loh has a fiduciary responsibility to UMCP to take that stand, whether or not his position prevails in court.
(02-08-2014 10:04 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 09:37 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 04:58 AM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 12:05 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ]This is embarrassing. Someone call Dr. Phil.
Embarrassment is <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< less significant than the money and every thing else that's at stake.
No one's going to throw their case in over embarrassment.
From the perspective of a UMCP alumnus, sure it's embarrassing. My position has been from day one that UMCP had the opportunity to leave the ACC before the vote took place but didn't; so it should just pay the $52 million fee and move on.
Also, B1G supposedly gave UMCP $30 million - imo, disguised as a travel subsidy - to cover payment of the increase in the exit fee. So I don't understand what he sticking point is, unless UMCP president Loh believes that exit fee should be zero.
By saying that Maryland had the opportunity to leave the ACC before the vote took place, you are essentially saying they could have walked away with no immediate conference alternative, and paid more than $20 million for that right. That's not a choice, that's extortion. IMO, by voting against the increase and then acting quickly to secure an alternative conference home prior to the date when the changed exit fee should have taken effect according to league rules and precedent, Maryland should be subject to the exit fee that they had previously agreed to.
I believe Loh has a fiduciary responsibility to UMCP to take that stand, whether or not his position prevails in court.
That's a silly argument ken.
According to your logic, or lack thereof, Maryland or any conference member, need only abide with the rules of the conference that they agree with and ignore all others. Try that position out in a homeowners association and see what it gets you.
(02-08-2014 10:04 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 09:37 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 04:58 AM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 12:05 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ]This is embarrassing. Someone call Dr. Phil.
Embarrassment is <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< less significant than the money and every thing else that's at stake.
No one's going to throw their case in over embarrassment.
From the perspective of a UMCP alumnus, sure it's embarrassing. My position has been from day one that UMCP had the opportunity to leave the ACC before the vote took place but didn't; so it should just pay the $52 million fee and move on.
Also, B1G supposedly gave UMCP $30 million - imo, disguised as a travel subsidy - to cover payment of the increase in the exit fee. So I don't understand what he sticking point is, unless UMCP president Loh believes that exit fee should be zero.
By saying that Maryland had the opportunity to leave the ACC before the vote took place, you are essentially saying they could have walked away with no immediate conference alternative, and paid more than $20 million for that right. That's not a choice, that's extortion. IMO, by voting against the increase and then acting quickly to secure an alternative conference home prior to the date when the changed exit fee should have taken effect according to league rules and precedent, Maryland should be subject to the exit fee that they had previously agreed to.
I believe Loh has a fiduciary responsibility to UMCP to take that stand, whether or not his position prevails in court.
Do you actually believe that it took only 2 days over a November weekend to negotiate UMCP's invitation into the Big Ten?
Don't you think Loh was less than responsible for failing to obtain counteroffers from the ACC of which it was a founding member or even the SEC?
(02-08-2014 09:37 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 04:58 AM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 12:05 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ]This is embarrassing. Someone call Dr. Phil.
Embarrassment is <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< less significant than the money and every thing else that's at stake.
No one's going to throw their case in over embarrassment.
From the perspective of a UMCP alumnus, sure it's embarrassing. My position has been from day one that UMCP had the opportunity to leave the ACC before the vote took place but didn't; so it should just pay the $52 million fee and move on.
Also, B1G supposedly gave UMCP $30 million - imo, disguised as a travel subsidy - to cover payment of the increase in the exit fee. So I don't understand what he sticking point is, unless UMCP president Loh believes that exit fee should be zero.
Maryland's "litigation" is just a propaganda war designed to change the focus from scrutiny on Kirwan's and Loh's decision making and ethics. They are worried that the Maryland board will turn on them when the foolishness of their decisions come home to roost. The attempt to toss some dirt in the air is an old technique.
Had Maryland been led smartly and ethically like Louisville, they would have done as Louisville did, and noticed an exit when the motion to raise the exit fee was placed before the body. They could have also noticed a date further out than just a year to give themselves time to "find" a conference although we know they didn't need to "find" a conference.
It will be interesting to see if the subpoena is quashed or how much Pitt actually reveals. Pitt's president knows a few things about the law in Pa., unlike Loh who either lied, or just shot his mouth off about the law without even knowing the proper jurisdiction for Maryland's complaints.
(02-08-2014 10:39 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 10:04 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 09:37 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 04:58 AM)ChrisLords Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2014 12:05 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote: [ -> ]This is embarrassing. Someone call Dr. Phil.
Embarrassment is <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< less significant than the money and every thing else that's at stake.
No one's going to throw their case in over embarrassment.
From the perspective of a UMCP alumnus, sure it's embarrassing. My position has been from day one that UMCP had the opportunity to leave the ACC before the vote took place but didn't; so it should just pay the $52 million fee and move on.
Also, B1G supposedly gave UMCP $30 million - imo, disguised as a travel subsidy - to cover payment of the increase in the exit fee. So I don't understand what he sticking point is, unless UMCP president Loh believes that exit fee should be zero.
By saying that Maryland had the opportunity to leave the ACC before the vote took place, you are essentially saying they could have walked away with no immediate conference alternative, and paid more than $20 million for that right. That's not a choice, that's extortion. IMO, by voting against the increase and then acting quickly to secure an alternative conference home prior to the date when the changed exit fee should have taken effect according to league rules and precedent, Maryland should be subject to the exit fee that they had previously agreed to.
I believe Loh has a fiduciary responsibility to UMCP to take that stand, whether or not his position prevails in court.
Do you actually believe that it took only 2 days over a November weekend to negotiate UMCP's invitation into the Big Ten?
Don't you think Loh was less than responsible for failing to obtain counteroffers from the ACC of which it was a founding member or even the SEC?
NJ2MDTerp - perhaps ken is one of the folks Maryland hired to carry their side of things in the media? That would make more sense to me, otherwise, he believes what he posts which is somewhat difficult to actually believe.