(02-14-2022 02:41 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]Your reasoning and logic is severely flawed.
Let me explain this where you might understand this contractual bylaw situation.
If I wanted to exit my mortgage early. All of the initial breaching action either legal or intentional remains with me. The Bank will not act before.
I either could sell the house to another party there by another bank paying off the existing mortgage or I could stop paying on the mortgage and then and only then would the bank take action and begin repossession.
It is the responsibility of the breaching party (SB3) to take action not the contractual bylaw
following party (CUSA).
We sent a letter of intent. We went public with our intent. We’ll repaint our courts and fields. We’ll play a Sun Belt schedule in the fall. Is that enough action?
(02-14-2022 02:52 PM)Ragu Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2022 02:38 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2022 02:34 PM)Ragu Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2022 02:25 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2022 02:18 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]You are misinformed. CUSA has no action to take, CUSA is following the agree upon contractual bylaws.
All the action remains with the breaching party (SB3).
CUSA intentions were made clear weeks ago. SB3 should have took action and filed suit in December if that was the case
WVU took action and filed suit 10 months before their exit
SB3 took action on Friday, 3 days before the schedule release.
I guess I'll put it in all caps since you don't understand:
THE SBC 3 NOTIFIED CUSA IN DECEMBER AND MADE OFFERS. FRISCO DID NOT COMMUNICATE BACK UNTIL FRIDAY WHEN THEY ISSUED A SCHEDULE.
HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU FILE A SUIT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH SOMEONE WHO'S NOT TALKING?
I think I know how.. It's like you posting without reading, thinking, or you're just trolling.
They don't have to negotiate. Its a bylaw your school is violating. They can say tough you are staying the year if they want. Doesn't matter who let teams out early in the past either. If cusa wants to hold you hostage they can
I doubt they do that, just saying they can. It very clearly says you have to give 14 months notice. Doesn't say anything about them having to negotiate your early release if they don't choose to do so. And you guys telling them youre out does nothing
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Yea cause the bylaws clearly state what happens if we leave prior to the notice..
I'm pretty sure our lawyers are smarter than most the posters, including me. I don't think the statements would've been released unless they knew the outcome.
It says 14 months notice. Doesn't have a money amount meaning if they negotiate nothing is set. But they don't need a money amount. They can say tough, honor the bylaws
There are dumb lawyers out there too. But I do agree it's probably ending ina negotiation. But no I don't think cusa has to negotiate with you guys. And your school declaring they are gone is just posturing. Really means nothing
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
Well I guess we'll just have to see.
(02-14-2022 02:14 PM)Luckyshot Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2022 06:55 PM)theATLDawg Wrote: [ -> ]Judy may not have been as dumb as everybody thinks. She said just enough. To say hey we made a statement. “We expect all members to fulfill their contracts” it’s really all she had to say. In the end the courts will say you can leave but at a cost.
If the bedrock of your reasoning is "Judy may not be as dumb as everybody thinks" then I don't know what to tell you.
Well her lack of statements were actually very controlled. Sometimes it’s better to say nothing or just enough. But that may be her lawyers talking.
(02-14-2022 02:54 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2022 02:41 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]Your reasoning and logic is severely flawed.
Let me explain this where you might understand this contractual bylaw situation.
If I wanted to exit my mortgage early. All of the initial breaching action either legal or intentional remains with me. The Bank will not act before.
I either could sell the house to another party there by another bank paying off the existing mortgage or I could stop paying on the mortgage and then and only then would the bank take action and begin repossession.
It is the responsibility of the breaching party (SB3) to take action not the contractual bylaw
following party (CUSA).
We sent a letter of intent. We went public with our intent. We’ll repaint our courts and fields. We’ll play a Sun Belt schedule in the fall. Is that enough action?
So. Per your own post ODU admitted publicly that you knowingly "BREACHED THE CONTRACT". You proclaimed it. ODU Took steps to leave and you are leaving. Now that you've admitted liability and have no valid defenses to your conduct; Y'all need to get out your checkbook.
When we have exacted a reasonable pound of flesh from the Breaching parties;
this Divorce will become Final.
Oh and BTW, we really don't care that you are gonna go to the Sunbelt
(02-13-2022 02:29 PM)Sideshow2313 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2022 02:19 PM)banker Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2022 01:34 PM)Sideshow2313 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2022 06:48 PM)Side.Show.Joe Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2022 06:36 PM)rileylives Wrote: [ -> ]Hard to secure an exit when you keep talking to a brick wall. The CUSA office decided to sit on their hands.
No. C-USA's lawyers decided to sit on their hands. And, I have a feeling you three played into their hands.
NOT a Lawyer but I deal with Contracts but am a CPA which had to pass the business law section.
I think SBC3 hastily left and any $ from SBC for an extra year will be handed over to CUSA.
SBC3 broke the contract. Now CUSA can tally up the damages of reorganizing their schedule. CUSA will sue for exit fees plus damages.
I am sure SBC3 will not pay all damages though. It will be alot more than SBC3 thought. The damages will be more than exit fees. Damages are where the big $ is and why lawyers ambulance chase.
Since you are playing lawyer, what do you see as a potential basis for damages and did the unwillingness of CUSA to negotiate an early exit enhance or reduce the potential amount?
The TV revenue is the same. Negotiations could have helped with scheduling issues. We aren’t getting any of the NCAA credit revenue. Based on the comments here, losing these three programs doesn’t hurt the reputation of CUSA. So what is the source of potential damages to claim?
"Damages for breach of contract may be given, for example, for the non-performance of a written or verbal agreement, or of a covenant to do or not to do a particular thing.
As to the measure of damages, the general rule is that the delinquent shall answer for all the injury which results from the immediate and direct breach of his agreement"
SBC breached the performance of a written contract so any financial impact to correct is viewed as damages. So CUSA 'extra' costs to move games, cancel hotel reservations, canceling of catering etc will be footed by SBC3.
Except zero of that has been done, as no schedules have been publicly released. It will literally cost C-USA nothing. LaTech might have slightly more travel costs by losing the @ USM games. They could say they would have hosted us in Baseball in 2023 and that would've been more tickets sold. None of the other C-USA 5 are close enough to the SB3 to be affected by the change at all. So it would take some very creative ideas by C-USA to find much cost at all. Then you'd need a very gullible judge. I realize those do exist though, so maybe that's what they are counting on?
(02-14-2022 02:41 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]Your reasoning and logic is severely flawed.
Let me explain this where you might understand this contractual bylaw situation.
If I wanted to exit my mortgage early. All of the initial breaching action either legal or intentional remains with me. The Bank will not act before.
I either could sell the house to another party there by another bank paying off the existing mortgage or I could stop paying on the mortgage and then and only then would the bank take action and begin repossession.
It is the responsibility of the breaching party (SB3) to take action not the contractual bylaw
following party (CUSA).
So if I call up the bank and say, “I’m gonna default. There’s no way around it. You can go ahead and start the repossession process,” how likely are they to ignore me for 2 1/2 months, then sue me to super-duper prove they’re entitled to repossess the house?
I don’t think anybody’s arguing CUSA’s not legally in the right and owed something above & beyond normal “exit fees.” It’s the process we’re seeing that’s befuddling unless the end game is to force the schools to stay. Otherwise, it’s a whole lot of la-dee-da just to arrive in the same place things were already headed: us paying extra to leave early.
If the goal of doing it this way is just to maximize the damages and squeeze out a few more bucks…well, there’s also the risk of the 3 schools just saying, “OK. Eff it. You win. We’ll just stay,” if the number gets too high.
(02-14-2022 02:42 PM)Nugget49er Wrote: [ -> ]I I also think Judy and team are pissed, and this is one of the only opportunities in life where they have an upper hand.
Somebody gets it.
It’s a power play to salvage whatever little bit of pride the CUSA office has left. If they hit the lottery and we’re forced to stay, CUSA flexed its muscle and derailed the Sun Belt for one more year. If there’s an arbitrated settlement, yeah, it all ends the same but CUSA can at least say it “won” something instead of merely arriving at an amicable settlement.
(02-14-2022 03:41 PM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2022 03:36 PM)HarborPointe Wrote: [ -> ]If the goal of doing it this way is just to maximize the damages and squeeze out a few more bucks…well, there’s also the risk of the 3 schools just saying, “OK. Eff it. You win. We’ll just stay,” if the number gets too high.
Win-win!
It’s either gonna be 3 checks or 3 schools. It’s not gonna be both. The checks you could’ve had by now.
All this talk of those three staying is just ridiculous. In no universe is that happening. As many have said it will just come down to a MONEY SETTLEMENT.
(02-13-2022 06:03 PM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2022 02:10 PM)Sideshow2313 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2022 01:57 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2022 01:41 PM)Sideshow2313 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-13-2022 01:38 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]Hard to imagine that scenario. If that were the case then why did the AAC settle for $7M on top of the $10M exit fee from UCONN? I just don’t see a lot of monetary damages that they’ll incur.
7 Million was the damages. Exit fee and damages are seperate.
Right. So the damages were 70% of the exit fee. Less not more as your previous post suggested.
Keyword is "separate" and NOT proportionate. CUSA exit fee will be a fraction of the damages CUSA will seek. CUSA will mop up, but it will not be 7 million. I am sure CUSA teams have been told to keep their receipts. Evidently will be paid by SBC3. That's without a penny in punitive damages which I am sure an arbiter will judge.
Bingo!!! The Remedy for "Breach of Contract" is always either Specific Performance or Damages. The departing SB3 have unilaterally chosen to leave prematurely thereby Breaching the Contract. Specific Performance cannot now happen. So. At some point, the SB3 are each gonna be paying CUSA some money. The exact Amount is yet TBD. 
And that was what we wanted, so . . .
(02-14-2022 03:48 PM)HarborPointe Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2022 03:41 PM)inutech Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2022 03:36 PM)HarborPointe Wrote: [ -> ]If the goal of doing it this way is just to maximize the damages and squeeze out a few more bucks…well, there’s also the risk of the 3 schools just saying, “OK. Eff it. You win. We’ll just stay,” if the number gets too high.
Win-win!
It’s either gonna be 3 checks or 3 schools. It’s not gonna be both. The checks you could’ve had by now.
Well, it wouldn't be in the form of checks, but revenues are forfeit either way, right? So it's either it's either 3 checks (and withholding some money) or it's 3 schools (and withholding a little more money).
But "if the goal of doing it this way is just to maximize the damages and squeeze out of few more bucks" and the risk is that CUSA gets its stated goal of another year of being blessed by your presence, I guess I don't see an downside here.
If it "works" as stated above -we get a few more bucks. If it doesn't, well, we get what we all signed up for per the by-laws (for another year).
Like I said win-win. A few more bucks or another year at 14. Where's the downside?
(02-14-2022 01:39 PM)herdfan129 Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry....but we don't give a **** what anyone in Texas thinks or has to say.
There is only 1 person in all of West Virginia that the entire country cares what he thinks or has to say and that is Joe Manchin.
As many of us have stated many times, we all know the SB3 will be gone July 1. I'm betting the SB3 told CUSA they were leaving early...CUSA said..well, u need to pay X dollars. The SB3 threw a hissy fit and and said no. Then CUSA said ok, see u next year.
All speculation aside (which is what this and the other threads are full of), it has been interesting to watch the moaning and groaning. Im not sure whether to laugh at or cry for some of these folks.
(02-14-2022 02:54 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-14-2022 02:41 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]Your reasoning and logic is severely flawed.
Let me explain this where you might understand this contractual bylaw situation.
If I wanted to exit my mortgage early. All of the initial breaching action either legal or intentional remains with me. The Bank will not act before.
I either could sell the house to another party there by another bank paying off the existing mortgage or I could stop paying on the mortgage and then and only then would the bank take action and begin repossession.
It is the responsibility of the breaching party (SB3) to take action not the contractual bylaw
following party (CUSA).
We sent a letter of intent. We went public with our intent. We’ll repaint our courts and fields. We’ll play a Sun Belt schedule in the fall. Is that enough action?
Michael Scott:
"I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!"
Oscar Nunez: "Hey. I just wanted you to know that you just can't say the word "bankruptcy" and expect anything to happen."
Michael Scott: "I didn't say it. I declared it."
Hey...any of you insiders know how much the premature exiting members offered to leave?
(02-13-2022 09:01 PM)theATLDawg Wrote: [ -> ]It can certainly ask for one. In the past it has been granted but there is no guarantee of anything. It will most likely be a money settlement. But in the past court orders have forced teams to stay
When? What teams were forced to stay in what leagues?