CSNbbs

(02-14-2022 06:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 05:30 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 04:50 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 04:41 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]Supposedly it would be settled in arbitration.

So we sent them the letters over two months ago and now both conferences are making football schedules with the same 3 teams on them. Granted that’s what the bylaws say but if that’s what CUSA planned on doing the shouldn’t they have gotten the injunction by now? Is an arbiter going to see the delay and shutting down of communication highly in their favor?

No, as explain many times before it is the responsibility of the breaching party to take action. WVU filed suit to leave 10 months early. SB3 issued a public statement 3 days ago.

CUSA is following the contractual bylaws and has publicly stated that. It doesn’t matter if SB3 told CUSA it was leaving in December that will have no bearing or consideration

Pretty basic common law across all 48 states

A tad of a disagreement. Negotiating to leave, or throwing numbers out in trying to leave isnt a breach. A party needs a breach in this case.

The letters of a few days ago were the step that was needed for breach.

My guess is that the lawsuits will be filed this week seeking specific performance in light of those letter.

So the private letters they sent in December stating their intent to breach don’t count? Just the public statements? I highly doubt that’s the case. So them sitting on their hands for two months and making a conference schedule that includes the three schools in question, good or bad for their request of injunction? Certainly there’s a point in time where the arbiter would look at them and say “you should have done this a long time ago” and deny it right?

I personally don’t think they want us in the conference next year, they’re just incompetent.

You admitted that the letters contained offers.

There is a huge difference between 'I am going to leave effective xyz' and one that says 'will 100 bucks keep me from being sued if I leave effective xyz ---- sign on the dotted line to give me a full release'.

If I get the first, yep, I know its a breach and I would tell a client that it is a breach.

If I get the second, odds are I would tell them to ignore it --- if they want more dont even respond.

If I was sending the second letter, I would do my damndest to steer it away from a clear breach. Most of the time it is not the client's best interest to give your putative opponent a free walk into court as an aggrieved party right off the bat. You might word it, 'we have the opportunity to make a break with conference effective xyz date, and would a payment of 100 quatloos keep you from storming into court on xyz date'?

But, none of us have the real letters that went back and forth, do we? I dont know if anyone (aside from the people that wrote/sent/received/ read the letters can give us much more, so you might be a little off base with your characterization above that they 'stated a clear and articulable intent to breach' no matter what.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I was going to say. My impression from what was released Friday is that the schools told C-USA they were leaving this summer and understood that required breaking the contract and then had an offer. Having been involved in similar situations before though, I can see how your assumption might be correct. Without the December information we don't know. Given all three are public universities, someone will Freedom of Information those soon enough!

(02-14-2022 05:40 PM)Luckyshot Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 04:50 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]No, as explain many times before it is the responsibility of the breaching party to take action. WVU filed suit to leave 10 months early. SB3 issued a public statement 3 days ago.

CUSA is following the contractual bylaws and has publicly stated that. It doesn’t matter if SB3 told CUSA it was leaving in December that will have no bearing or consideration

Pretty basic common law across all 48 states

So communicating directly with C-USA will have no bearing, but announcing it publicly makes it a legal issue? It's not something for the law to consider until it's "Twitter Official"?

The SBC3 were attempting per their administration to get out of the 14 month notice by making offers. CUSA office says here is the bylaws you signed. That is not breach. The SBC3 publicly stating they will breach their contract is breach.

Bylaws say 14 months notice or 75% vote of remaining schools, and Exit fee is equal to 2 years of conference revenue, satisfy those and you are free to go. Do not satisfy those and remedy is injunction.

If arbitration following the injunction finds the SBC3 can leave early there will be damages awarded to the conference in addition to an exit fee equal to one year of conference revenue (assuming they forego the 2021-2022 payment). All three schools will most likely be looking at 3-3.5MM once all is said and done. The 2022-2023 revenue doesn't satisfy the exit fee if your school leaves early as you are not entitled to revenue of the conference you are not a part of. Bylaws also state all exit fees must be paid before a school can leave. Just better hope if your one of the SBC3 that this isn't the year a CUSA team goes on a Final Four run.

(02-14-2022 06:28 PM)Luckyshot Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 06:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 05:30 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 04:50 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]No, as explain many times before it is the responsibility of the breaching party to take action. WVU filed suit to leave 10 months early. SB3 issued a public statement 3 days ago.

CUSA is following the contractual bylaws and has publicly stated that. It doesn’t matter if SB3 told CUSA it was leaving in December that will have no bearing or consideration

Pretty basic common law across all 48 states

A tad of a disagreement. Negotiating to leave, or throwing numbers out in trying to leave isnt a breach. A party needs a breach in this case.

The letters of a few days ago were the step that was needed for breach.

My guess is that the lawsuits will be filed this week seeking specific performance in light of those letter.

So the private letters they sent in December stating their intent to breach don’t count? Just the public statements? I highly doubt that’s the case. So them sitting on their hands for two months and making a conference schedule that includes the three schools in question, good or bad for their request of injunction? Certainly there’s a point in time where the arbiter would look at them and say “you should have done this a long time ago” and deny it right?

I personally don’t think they want us in the conference next year, they’re just incompetent.

You admitted that the letters contained offers.

There is a huge difference between 'I am going to leave effective xyz' and one that says 'will 100 bucks keep me from being sued if I leave effective xyz ---- sign on the dotted line to give me a full release'.

If I get the first, yep, I know its a breach and I would tell a client that it is a breach.

If I get the second, odds are I would tell them to ignore it --- if they want more dont even respond.

If I was sending the second letter, I would do my damndest to steer it away from a clear breach. Most of the time it is not the client's best interest to give your putative opponent a free walk into court as an aggrieved party right off the bat. You might word it, 'we have the opportunity to make a break with conference effective xyz date, and would a payment of 100 quatloos keep you from storming into court on xyz date'?

But, none of us have the real letters that went back and forth, do we? I dont know if anyone (aside from the people that wrote/sent/received/ read the letters can give us much more, so you might be a little off base with your characterization above that they 'stated a clear and articulable intent to breach' no matter what.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I was going to say. My impression from what was released Friday is that the schools told C-USA they were leaving this summer and understood that required breaking the contract and then had an offer. Having been involved in similar situations before though, I can see how your assumption might be correct. Without the December information we don't know. Given all three are public universities, someone will Freedom of Information those soon enough!

And, to flesh it out further -- -CUSA is under *no* obligation to consider any offer less or different than what was agreed to in the bylaws. Zero, zilch, nada, null set.

Even if there was a clear declaration of intent to breach.

The idea seems to be coming from some about 'how bad it was' to get a non-response. Tough patooties.

If CUSA gets the injunction, the SB3 are really put between a rock and a hard place. Ruh roh, spaghetti-o. Bummer.

And the lawyer from Fla is correct in that in normal situations, specific performance is frowned on. Correctomundo.

But the more unique the situation, and more unique the issue at hand, the more it is looked at favorably. So how unique is this agreement? Seems to me there are 9 such agreements total in the nation. So...... pretty unique actually.

How unique is the relationship in the agreement? Well the relationship is providing for opponents across a wide spectrum of Division 1 athletics and governance of conference athletics. Seems to this ol' tinder brain that there arent that many entities that can be parties to the agreement, that cover damages wont really do, and that the fucntions provided by the breaching parties are quite unique -- most likely irreplaceable and very hard to quantify in monetary damages.

So, my guess is that the CUSA bylaws is correct --- specific performance *is* the perfect way to assess damages. It really is probably the only way to make the non-breaching parties truly whole, in fact.

So I wouldnt be wholly surprised to see a judge enjoin the SB3 from leaving, and only leaving according to the terms of the bylaws. Suck it up, play a few games, and move on.

So given that, I understand why CUSA refused to 'counter'. Those evil bastiges.......

(02-14-2022 06:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 05:30 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 04:50 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 04:41 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]Supposedly it would be settled in arbitration.

So we sent them the letters over two months ago and now both conferences are making football schedules with the same 3 teams on them. Granted that’s what the bylaws say but if that’s what CUSA planned on doing the shouldn’t they have gotten the injunction by now? Is an arbiter going to see the delay and shutting down of communication highly in their favor?

No, as explain many times before it is the responsibility of the breaching party to take action. WVU filed suit to leave 10 months early. SB3 issued a public statement 3 days ago.

CUSA is following the contractual bylaws and has publicly stated that. It doesn’t matter if SB3 told CUSA it was leaving in December that will have no bearing or consideration

Pretty basic common law across all 48 states

A tad of a disagreement. Negotiating to leave, or throwing numbers out in trying to leave isnt a breach. A party needs a breach in this case.

The letters of a few days ago were the step that was needed for breach.

My guess is that the lawsuits will be filed this week seeking specific performance in light of those letter.

So the private letters they sent in December stating their intent to breach don’t count? Just the public statements? I highly doubt that’s the case. So them sitting on their hands for two months and making a conference schedule that includes the three schools in question, good or bad for their request of injunction? Certainly there’s a point in time where the arbiter would look at them and say “you should have done this a long time ago” and deny it right?

I personally don’t think they want us in the conference next year, they’re just incompetent.

You admitted that the letters contained offers.

There is a huge difference between 'I am going to leave effective xyz' and one that says 'will 100 bucks keep me from being sued if I leave effective xyz ---- sign on the dotted line to give me a full release'.

If I get the first, yep, I know its a breach and I would tell a client that it is a breach.

If I get the second, odds are I would tell them to ignore it --- if they want more dont even respond.

If I was sending the second letter, I would do my damndest to steer it away from a clear breach. Most of the time it is not the client's best interest to give your putative opponent a free walk into court as an aggrieved party right off the bat. You might word it, 'we have the opportunity to make a break with conference effective xyz date, and would a payment of 100 quatloos keep you from storming into court on xyz date'?

But, none of us have the real letters that went back and forth, do we? I dont know if anyone (aside from the people that wrote/sent/received/ read the letters can give us much more, so you might be a little off base with your characterization above that they 'stated a clear and articulable intent to breach' no matter what.

I agree, none of us know the content of the private communications. I do know we were prepared to leave regardless.

(02-14-2022 06:02 PM)herdfan129 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 03:56 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

Weird....seems like all of you care what Marshall President Brad Smith decides and has to say on this.

Hilarious that Marshall/ODU/So Miss are no longer in the conference and we are STILL the flagship programs lol

A flagship wouldn't have to bolt. A glaring problem of C-USA is the lack of flagship.

(02-14-2022 07:18 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 06:02 PM)herdfan129 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 03:56 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

Weird....seems like all of you care what Marshall President Brad Smith decides and has to say on this.

Hilarious that Marshall/ODU/So Miss are no longer in the conference and we are STILL the flagship programs lol

A flagship wouldn't have to bolt. A glaring problem of C-USA is the lack of flagship.

Ha delusional. You were basically dictated to by JMU. They held all the cards. Nice flagships there

(02-14-2022 06:02 PM)herdfan129 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 03:56 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

Weird....seems like all of you care what Marshall President Brad Smith decides and has to say on this.

Hilarious that Marshall/ODU/So Miss are no longer in the conference and we are STILL the flagship programs lol

There were 3 name brand programs in C-USA (Tech, Marshall and USM). The SB got 2 of them.

(02-14-2022 06:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 06:28 PM)Luckyshot Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 06:02 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 05:30 PM)mturn017 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]A tad of a disagreement. Negotiating to leave, or throwing numbers out in trying to leave isnt a breach. A party needs a breach in this case.

The letters of a few days ago were the step that was needed for breach.

My guess is that the lawsuits will be filed this week seeking specific performance in light of those letter.

So the private letters they sent in December stating their intent to breach don’t count? Just the public statements? I highly doubt that’s the case. So them sitting on their hands for two months and making a conference schedule that includes the three schools in question, good or bad for their request of injunction? Certainly there’s a point in time where the arbiter would look at them and say “you should have done this a long time ago” and deny it right?

I personally don’t think they want us in the conference next year, they’re just incompetent.

You admitted that the letters contained offers.

There is a huge difference between 'I am going to leave effective xyz' and one that says 'will 100 bucks keep me from being sued if I leave effective xyz ---- sign on the dotted line to give me a full release'.

If I get the first, yep, I know its a breach and I would tell a client that it is a breach.

If I get the second, odds are I would tell them to ignore it --- if they want more dont even respond.

If I was sending the second letter, I would do my damndest to steer it away from a clear breach. Most of the time it is not the client's best interest to give your putative opponent a free walk into court as an aggrieved party right off the bat. You might word it, 'we have the opportunity to make a break with conference effective xyz date, and would a payment of 100 quatloos keep you from storming into court on xyz date'?

But, none of us have the real letters that went back and forth, do we? I dont know if anyone (aside from the people that wrote/sent/received/ read the letters can give us much more, so you might be a little off base with your characterization above that they 'stated a clear and articulable intent to breach' no matter what.

Your last paragraph is exactly what I was going to say. My impression from what was released Friday is that the schools told C-USA they were leaving this summer and understood that required breaking the contract and then had an offer. Having been involved in similar situations before though, I can see how your assumption might be correct. Without the December information we don't know. Given all three are public universities, someone will Freedom of Information those soon enough!

And, to flesh it out further -- -CUSA is under *no* obligation to consider any offer less or different than what was agreed to in the bylaws. Zero, zilch, nada, null set.

Even if there was a clear declaration of intent to breach.

The idea seems to be coming from some about 'how bad it was' to get a non-response. Tough patooties.

If CUSA gets the injunction, the SB3 are really put between a rock and a hard place. Ruh roh, spaghetti-o. Bummer.

And the lawyer from Fla is correct in that in normal situations, specific performance is frowned on. Correctomundo.

But the more unique the situation, and more unique the issue at hand, the more it is looked at favorably. So how unique is this agreement? Seems to me there are 9 such agreements total in the nation. So...... pretty unique actually.

How unique is the relationship in the agreement? Well the relationship is providing for opponents across a wide spectrum of Division 1 athletics and governance of conference athletics. Seems to this ol' tinder brain that there arent that many entities that can be parties to the agreement, that cover damages wont really do, and that the fucntions provided by the breaching parties are quite unique -- most likely irreplaceable and very hard to quantify in monetary damages.

So, my guess is that the CUSA bylaws is correct --- specific performance *is* the perfect way to assess damages. It really is probably the only way to make the non-breaching parties truly whole, in fact.

So I wouldnt be wholly surprised to see a judge enjoin the SB3 from leaving, and only leaving according to the terms of the bylaws. Suck it up, play a few games, and move on.

So given that, I understand why CUSA refused to 'counter'. Those evil bastiges.......

This isn't the government, you cannot force the University who wants to leave to stay if they willingly break from the conference.

The lack of response from CUSA office will only help to serve the Sun Belt 3, not hurt us.

ROLL CALL

I want every single AAC incoming member who posted on this thread upset at Marshall, ODU, Southern Miss to answer one question.

What would you want your school to do if the same applied to you?

Keep in mind, the Sun Belt WAIVED our entry fees to join in 2022. Apparently the AAC entry fee is 10 million. So the AAC is willing to waive that for you to enter in 2022.

What would you want your school to do? I will keep posting this until I hear HONEST answers.

(02-14-2022 04:33 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 04:26 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]You keep glossing over that the bylaws say that everyone agrees that they will accept an injunction to keep them from leaving early.

You think the only form of damages is money -- in this case it is not. In fact, it is explicitly not the case.

Your reasoning seems to be 'no monetary damages' == 'no damages'. That is a fatal misunderstanding to your construct. Specific performance is a very real issue for contracts that deal with very unique situations.

CUSA has zero obligation to negotiate. They, per everyone's explicit agreement, can march into a court and get an injunction saying 'not so fast sb3'. Something that many from the sb3 cannot wrap their heads around.

CUSA *may* negotiate an early withdrawal -- but y'all sound absolutely horrified and butthurt that that they dont. Well, hate to tell you, they dont have the obligation to do so.

The next step for theCUSA is march down to the 'agreed to' venue district court, plop down the letter y'all supplied, plop down the contract, and ask for an injunction. Which most likely will be granted on the papers themselves.

The SB3 attorneys can scream to hell and high water how they 'threw out numbers for negotiation', but the simple fact remains that each and every member of the sb3 agreed, in writing, that the CUSA doesnt have to do ****, nor even negotiate with an early leaving member.

But you think its such a miscarriage of justice. The bylaws are simple, they explicitly state the 'if a member tries to leave prior to the June 1 after 14 months' they cannot -- and in fact they agree before the fact that they know that injunctive relief is not just possible, but agree that it is the literally the best remedy for the situation.

But nope, how *dare* the CUSA think otherwise.

Kind of amazing to me.

You keep overlooking that the bylaws state we can leave, but with a monetary penalty.

What's an injustice is that we're trying to leave in good faith and the office won't hear of it.

But to hell with what it says.

I guess CUSA has us. Let's see who USM plays in cross division play since the schedule was supposed to drop at 3 CST....

Or, the CUSA office is working in good faith for the SB3 to pay a fair early exit fee and those three won't pay a fair and reasonable exit fee because they thought they were too good to pay. We may never know.

This camp has been too quiet. I was wondering when the wku insults would start. Please provide me with any links or proof that any of the 3 are trying to leave and not pay. Our ad acknowledged at the very beginning that it would cost us somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million.
Too good to pay?

Wants or Feelings have nothing to do with this matter. It is the rule of law and somehow that escapes some of these posters. Living in a misinformed Sunbelt bubble distorts one’s view of reality. We are nation of laws, you breach or break a law you pay the consequences.

And Consequence in this matter is either CUSA can choice to make the SB3 stay or CUSA can choice to make them pay a fee they consider equitable.

(02-14-2022 08:31 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 04:33 PM)WKUApollo Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 04:26 PM)gdunn Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]You keep glossing over that the bylaws say that everyone agrees that they will accept an injunction to keep them from leaving early.

You think the only form of damages is money -- in this case it is not. In fact, it is explicitly not the case.

Your reasoning seems to be 'no monetary damages' == 'no damages'. That is a fatal misunderstanding to your construct. Specific performance is a very real issue for contracts that deal with very unique situations.

CUSA has zero obligation to negotiate. They, per everyone's explicit agreement, can march into a court and get an injunction saying 'not so fast sb3'. Something that many from the sb3 cannot wrap their heads around.

CUSA *may* negotiate an early withdrawal -- but y'all sound absolutely horrified and butthurt that that they dont. Well, hate to tell you, they dont have the obligation to do so.

The next step for theCUSA is march down to the 'agreed to' venue district court, plop down the letter y'all supplied, plop down the contract, and ask for an injunction. Which most likely will be granted on the papers themselves.

The SB3 attorneys can scream to hell and high water how they 'threw out numbers for negotiation', but the simple fact remains that each and every member of the sb3 agreed, in writing, that the CUSA doesnt have to do ****, nor even negotiate with an early leaving member.

But you think its such a miscarriage of justice. The bylaws are simple, they explicitly state the 'if a member tries to leave prior to the June 1 after 14 months' they cannot -- and in fact they agree before the fact that they know that injunctive relief is not just possible, but agree that it is the literally the best remedy for the situation.

But nope, how *dare* the CUSA think otherwise.

Kind of amazing to me.

You keep overlooking that the bylaws state we can leave, but with a monetary penalty.

What's an injustice is that we're trying to leave in good faith and the office won't hear of it.

But to hell with what it says.

I guess CUSA has us. Let's see who USM plays in cross division play since the schedule was supposed to drop at 3 CST....

Or, the CUSA office is working in good faith for the SB3 to pay a fair early exit fee and those three won't pay a fair and reasonable exit fee because they thought they were too good to pay. We may never know.

This camp has been too quiet. I was wondering when the wku insults would start. Please provide me with any links or proof that any of the 3 are trying to leave and not pay. Our ad acknowledged at the very beginning that it would cost us somewhere in the neighborhood of 3 million.
Too good to pay?

Dude...it was a joke...as most of the thread has been. Countless folks throwing out mindless conspiracy theories and speculation.

(02-14-2022 08:34 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]Wants or Feelings have nothing to do with this matter. It is the rule of law and somehow that escapes some of these posters. Living in a misinformed Sunbelt bubble distorts one’s view of reality. We are nation of laws, you breach or break a law you pay the consequences.

And Consequence in this matter is either CUSA can choice to make the SB3 stay or CUSA can choice to make them pay a fee they consider equitable.

Incorrect. Nothing is going to keep Marshall to stay, and you didn't answer my question. What would you have your school do if the AAC waived its entry fee into 2022?

(02-14-2022 08:34 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]Wants or Feelings have nothing to do with this matter. It is the rule of law and somehow that escapes some of these posters. Living in a misinformed Sunbelt bubble distorts one’s view of reality. We are nation of laws, you breach or break a law you pay the consequences.

And Consequence in this matter is either CUSA can choice to make the SB3 stay or CUSA can choice to make them pay a fee they consider equitable.

The majority of the 3 posters don’t understand this basic concept.

(02-14-2022 07:53 PM)SouthernMiss3613 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 06:02 PM)herdfan129 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 03:56 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

Weird....seems like all of you care what Marshall President Brad Smith decides and has to say on this.

Hilarious that Marshall/ODU/So Miss are no longer in the conference and we are STILL the flagship programs lol

There were 3 name brand programs in C-USA (Tech, Marshall and USM). The SB got 2 of them.

I might agree with that but ODU went MIA for a while. UAB was probably a brand. Maybe Rice

(02-14-2022 07:53 PM)SouthernMiss3613 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 06:02 PM)herdfan129 Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 03:56 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

Weird....seems like all of you care what Marshall President Brad Smith decides and has to say on this.

Hilarious that Marshall/ODU/So Miss are no longer in the conference and we are STILL the flagship programs lol

There were 3 name brand programs in C-USA (Tech, Marshall and USM). The SB got 2 of them.

Now that’s hilarious.

(02-14-2022 08:40 PM)Dusky Wrote: [ -> ]

(02-14-2022 08:34 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]Wants or Feelings have nothing to do with this matter. It is the rule of law and somehow that escapes some of these posters. Living in a misinformed Sunbelt bubble distorts one’s view of reality. We are nation of laws, you breach or break a law you pay the consequences.

And Consequence in this matter is either CUSA can choice to make the SB3 stay or CUSA can choice to make them pay a fee they consider equitable.

The majority of the 3 posters don’t understand this basic concept.

I've been consistent in stating I think we should pay whatever fee is owed, but I don't think it's going to be much at all, and certainly none of it is going to go to member schools after lawyers eat up what little there is.

What little would get paid would go to the CUSA offices.

But none of that answers my question.

(02-14-2022 08:34 PM)Twon Wrote: [ -> ]Wants or Feelings have nothing to do with this matter. It is the rule of law and somehow that escapes some of these posters. Living in a misinformed Sunbelt bubble distorts one’s view of reality. We are nation of laws, you breach or break a law you pay the consequences.

And Consequence in this matter is either CUSA can choice to make the SB3 stay or CUSA can choice to make them pay a fee they consider equitable.

You may and have been distorting things as well.
Again show me where any of the 3 are trying to get out of paying?
This case would so much fun to litigate on the side of the sb3.
Showing the leagues breach of fiduciary duties to individual members would make a good 30 for 30.

It's not a ridiculous or difficult question, but one still not addressed. I will continue to post until we all get honest answers.

What would you want your school to do if the same applied to you?

Keep in mind, the Sun Belt WAIVED our entry fees to join in 2022. Apparently the AAC entry fee is 10 million. So the AAC is willing to waive that for you to enter in 2022.

What would you want your school to do? I will keep posting this until I hear HONEST answers.

Since Joe started this thread, we need to hear from him.

Also OptimisticOwl, 49RFootballNow, ghostofclt...

I am sure there have been quite a few other future AAC members.