(05-21-2014 03:15 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 07:48 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 07:23 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-20-2014 01:11 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(05-19-2014 04:16 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Just for clarification, the exit fee is NOT $52 million. The exit fee is 3x the YOB. It is much higher than $52 million now and I'm not aware of any current ACC teams that are voicing any concerns. How long has this exit fee been in place? Language will be important. Maryland may pay less than what they should but if the ACC wins on the language, that is worth just as much.

The Big12 has both an exit fee and a GOR. Their language regarding the difference is pretty detailed. It is available in their handbook if anyone is interested.

Several years ago the exit fee was in the $10M+ range. The ACC wanted to increase it to $30M+. FSU and UMD spoke out against it and were able to get it toned-down to $20M. This was sometime around 2010-2012. Then a year or two later the ACC voted to increase it to 3 times the conference's operating budget. Both FSU and UMD voted against it. Then a year or two after that the ACC enacted a grant of rights that UMD apparently did not sign and thereabouts announced their intention to join the Big Ten.

The ACC took Maryland's public announcement of their move in November 2012 as their official notice. There is nothing in the bylaws that state how notice of withdrawal must be given. That was necessary to start the withholding process. MD did not send an official letter of departure until 6-7 months later.

From the time of MD's public announcement of their departure, they were not included in conference business or legal matters. The GOR was signed about 6 months after MD announced they were joining the B10.

Actually there are very specific descriptions of what must take place in order for an ACC member to officially provide notice of withdrawal and for anything to be withheld from them.

In paragraph 43. page 11-12 of Maryland's countersuit against the ACC they clearly identify just what the ACC's provisions were:

"Section IV-5 of the ACC Constitution prescribes the only method for voluntary withdrawal from the ACC "[t]o withdraw from the conference, a member must file an official notice of withdrawal with each of the conference members and the Commissioner on or before August 15 for the withdrawal to be effective June 30 of the following year."
44. Only at the point that an ACC member has provided official notice of withdrawal does the withdrawing institution become subject to a withdrawal payment under the ACC constitution

http://media10.washingtonpost.com/generi...awsuit.pdf

The document goes on to say that under the constitution only after the official notification method can the ACC begin withholding distributions--the ACC clearly began withholding long before UMD provided such official notice.

Where does that describe the "official notice"? Where does it say what media or communication device must be used to make the "official notice"? Like I said there is NOTHING in the bylaws that states how the notice must be given. MD chose to give their "official notice" at a press conference with the B12. You are attempting to read more into the bylaws than what exists in the bylaws and there is nothing in the bylaws that specifies what "official notice" is and what it is not.

Sorry but that is about the biggest grasp at straws anyone has attempted to make. However, even in the extreme off chance a court would accept your reasoning, the payment by the ACC constitution couldn't begin to be withheld until the following June 30 and the ACC began immediately withholding Marylands revenues .

ACC may lose this but I doubt it's on the grounds that a public announcement isn't sufficient notice!

(05-21-2014 03:37 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  ACC may lose this but I doubt it's on the grounds that a public announcement isn't sufficient notice!

But its kind of hypocritical to say "the by-laws are the by-laws" and say that constructive notice counts as official notice.

Maryland clearly did not give official notice by the by-laws. But it will probably be interpreted that they effectively gave constructive notice. The same logic applies to the ACC and their $52 million. You can't ignore your procedural methods and time frames and then put in something that materially impacts the business relationship without giving them a certain amount of time to reject it.

and it remains that the ACC-by their constitution could not withhold funds from Maryland until the following June 30th--but of course they did--and they also withheld NCAA distributions that don't belong to them under any circumstance.

BTW-the wording in the constitution says "FILE" a notice. Talking in a press conference doesn't constitute "FILING".

(05-21-2014 04:41 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  and it remains that the ACC-by their constitution could not withhold funds from Maryland until the following June 30th--but of course they did--and they also withheld NCAA distributions that don't belong to them under any circumstance.

BTW-the wording in the constitution says "FILE" a notice. Talking in a press conference doesn't constitute "FILING".

Apparently, there's nothing in the bylaws prohibiting the withholding of disbursements in anticipation of a withdrawal notification. Certainly, this passes a "reasonable man" argument. Who could make the argument with a straight face that Maryland wasn't withdrawing after making the announcement, at a press conference, with Delaney sharing the dais?

The ACC filing the lawsuit first can be understood in the light of Maryland failing to notify their conference mates of there withdrawal in a timely fashion when it was clear the decision had been made. You can't pretend to be a voting normal member of the ACC once a offer to join the Big Ten has been signed and accepted.

So, there's something of case against Maryland for duplicity as well for withholding their official notification.

(05-21-2014 05:19 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 04:41 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  and it remains that the ACC-by their constitution could not withhold funds from Maryland until the following June 30th--but of course they did--and they also withheld NCAA distributions that don't belong to them under any circumstance.

BTW-the wording in the constitution says "FILE" a notice. Talking in a press conference doesn't constitute "FILING".

Apparently, there's nothing in the bylaws prohibiting the withholding of disbursements in anticipation of a withdrawal notification. Certainly, this passes a "reasonable man" argument. Who could make the argument with a straight face that Maryland wasn't withdrawing after making the announcement, at a press conference, with Delaney sharing the dais?

The ACC filing the lawsuit first can be understood in the light of Maryland failing to notify their conference mates of there withdrawal in a timely fashion when it was clear the decision had been made. You can't pretend to be a voting normal member of the ACC once a offer to join the Big Ten has been signed and accepted.

So, there's something of case against Maryland for duplicity as well for withholding their official notification.

Actually, yes there is and I posted the link above that spells it out. The notifications must be filed with each and every member and the league office by August, and it isn't official until the following June 30. Maryland filed June 26, 2013 to the office and June 27, 2013 to the members per the bylaws. The constitution spells out the exact method of notification. It doesn't say "a press conference constitutes withdrawal" it says the notification must be filed with the head office and the members. You can't say on the one hand Maryland is to be held to the bylaws, but on the other the ACC can shuffle them around as they see fit, obey them or not.

Secondly, the ACC constitutions sets actual formal rules for a members inclusion in conference meetings and votes for after they have announced withdrawal:

From Maryland's lawsuit linked above:

47. Under the ACC Constitution, a member that has provided official notice remains, in all respects--except for entitlement to Conference distributions due after the date of notice of withdrawal -- a member of the ACC, entitled to all rights and priveleges of a member, until its actual withdrawal date.

(05-21-2014 07:30 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 05:19 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 04:41 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  and it remains that the ACC-by their constitution could not withhold funds from Maryland until the following June 30th--but of course they did--and they also withheld NCAA distributions that don't belong to them under any circumstance.

BTW-the wording in the constitution says "FILE" a notice. Talking in a press conference doesn't constitute "FILING".

Apparently, there's nothing in the bylaws prohibiting the withholding of disbursements in anticipation of a withdrawal notification. Certainly, this passes a "reasonable man" argument. Who could make the argument with a straight face that Maryland wasn't withdrawing after making the announcement, at a press conference, with Delaney sharing the dais?

The ACC filing the lawsuit first can be understood in the light of Maryland failing to notify their conference mates of there withdrawal in a timely fashion when it was clear the decision had been made. You can't pretend to be a voting normal member of the ACC once a offer to join the Big Ten has been signed and accepted.

So, there's something of case against Maryland for duplicity as well for withholding their official notification.

Actually, yes there is and I posted the link above that spells it out. The notifications must be filed with each and every member and the league office by August, and it isn't official until the following June 30. Maryland filed June 26, 2013 to the office and June 27, 2013 to the members per the bylaws. The constitution spells out the exact method of notification. It doesn't say "a press conference constitutes withdrawal" it says the notification must be filed with the head office and the members. You can't say on the one hand Maryland is to be held to the bylaws, but on the other the ACC can shuffle them around as they see fit, obey them or not.

Secondly, the ACC constitutions sets actual formal rules for a members inclusion in conference meetings and votes for after they have announced withdrawal:

From Maryland's lawsuit linked above:

47. Under the ACC Constitution, a member that has provided official notice remains, in all respects--except for entitlement to Conference distributions due after the date of notice of withdrawal -- a member of the ACC, entitled to all rights and priveleges of a member, until its actual withdrawal date.

Just because you and Maryland claim something does not make it so.

(05-21-2014 08:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 07:30 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 05:19 PM)CardinalZen Wrote:  

(05-21-2014 04:41 PM)Tbringer Wrote:  and it remains that the ACC-by their constitution could not withhold funds from Maryland until the following June 30th--but of course they did--and they also withheld NCAA distributions that don't belong to them under any circumstance.

BTW-the wording in the constitution says "FILE" a notice. Talking in a press conference doesn't constitute "FILING".

Apparently, there's nothing in the bylaws prohibiting the withholding of disbursements in anticipation of a withdrawal notification. Certainly, this passes a "reasonable man" argument. Who could make the argument with a straight face that Maryland wasn't withdrawing after making the announcement, at a press conference, with Delaney sharing the dais?

The ACC filing the lawsuit first can be understood in the light of Maryland failing to notify their conference mates of there withdrawal in a timely fashion when it was clear the decision had been made. You can't pretend to be a voting normal member of the ACC once a offer to join the Big Ten has been signed and accepted.

So, there's something of case against Maryland for duplicity as well for withholding their official notification.

Actually, yes there is and I posted the link above that spells it out. The notifications must be filed with each and every member and the league office by August, and it isn't official until the following June 30. Maryland filed June 26, 2013 to the office and June 27, 2013 to the members per the bylaws. The constitution spells out the exact method of notification. It doesn't say "a press conference constitutes withdrawal" it says the notification must be filed with the head office and the members. You can't say on the one hand Maryland is to be held to the bylaws, but on the other the ACC can shuffle them around as they see fit, obey them or not.

Secondly, the ACC constitutions sets actual formal rules for a members inclusion in conference meetings and votes for after they have announced withdrawal:

From Maryland's lawsuit linked above:

47. Under the ACC Constitution, a member that has provided official notice remains, in all respects--except for entitlement to Conference distributions due after the date of notice of withdrawal -- a member of the ACC, entitled to all rights and priveleges of a member, until its actual withdrawal date.

Just because you and Maryland claim something does not make it so.

It's in the ACC constitution. It's in the lawsuit documentation.

Just because you don't want it to be true doesn't mean it isn't. It isn't spinnable. It's there.

T - I think you have a reading comprehension issue in addition to not understanding the legal system in NC. But have fun with your opinions.

You want the ACC Constitution to say something that it does not.

The word "file" is not defined.

You can wish it were defined, and you may have your own definition of what "file" means, but your opinion of the meaning of "file" is meaningless.

The facts are that MD told the entire world they were leaving, and when they would leave, and that they would not pay what they owed. That's the same as "filing" a notice since it came from the CEO of the organization.

Just because an attorney for MD writes something does not make it true because he attorney is an advocate for MD in an adversarial system. Therefore the attorney for MD is paid to spin everything in MD's favor.

(05-22-2014 10:06 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  T - I think you have a reading comprehension issue in addition to not understanding the legal system in NC. But have fun with your opinions.

You want the ACC Constitution to say something that it does not.

The word "file" is not defined.

You can wish it were defined, and you may have your own definition of what "file" means, but your opinion of the meaning of "file" is meaningless.

The facts are that MD told the entire world they were leaving, and when they would leave, and that they would not pay what they owed. That's the same as "filing" a notice since it came from the CEO of the organization.

Just because an attorney for MD writes something does not make it true because he attorney is an advocate for MD in an adversarial system. Therefore the attorney for MD is paid to spin everything in MD's favor.

L--I think it is you who has reading comprehension issues. You want so badly to stick it to Maryland that you are ignoring the ACC had a clear set of rules in place to handle departures. Instead of following their own rules they bucked all of them in their rush to punish Maryland and keep anyone else from following.

Maryland followed the ACCs rules--the ACC has not clearly- no matter how much stretching you attempt to do. If Maryland cites articles from the ACC constitution in a court of law--pretty sure, yes, that means it is true no matter how badly you don't want it to be.

At this point there is no reason to continue this lawsuit and there is no reason to believe UMD is going to pay some punitive illegal buyout fee that is based on nothing and was thrown into place at the last minute despite the ACCs own rules for enacting such rule changes.

(05-22-2014 11:40 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:06 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  T - I think you have a reading comprehension issue in addition to not understanding the legal system in NC. But have fun with your opinions.

You want the ACC Constitution to say something that it does not.

The word "file" is not defined.

You can wish it were defined, and you may have your own definition of what "file" means, but your opinion of the meaning of "file" is meaningless.

The facts are that MD told the entire world they were leaving, and when they would leave, and that they would not pay what they owed. That's the same as "filing" a notice since it came from the CEO of the organization.

Just because an attorney for MD writes something does not make it true because he attorney is an advocate for MD in an adversarial system. Therefore the attorney for MD is paid to spin everything in MD's favor.

L--I think it is you who has reading comprehension issues. You want so badly to stick it to Maryland that you are ignoring the ACC had a clear set of rules in place to handle departures. Instead of following their own rules they bucked all of them in their rush to punish Maryland and keep anyone else from following.

Maryland followed the ACCs rules--the ACC has not clearly- no matter how much stretching you attempt to do. If Maryland cites articles from the ACC constitution in a court of law--pretty sure, yes, that means it is true no matter how badly you don't want it to be.

At this point there is no reason to continue this lawsuit and there is no reason to believe UMD is going to pay some punitive illegal buyout fee that is based on nothing and was thrown into place at the last minute despite the ACCs own rules for enacting such rule changes.

You're silly - you think you can pick out a single line of text and determine what it means outside the framework of an entire document that is loosely written. Just because a plaintiff claims something does not make it true. You seem to think it does.

The next thing you are going to assert is that we don't need the Supreme Court because we know what the Constitution says and anyone can run a photocopy of a particular line and paste it into something. So silly.

(05-23-2014 10:41 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 11:40 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:06 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  T - I think you have a reading comprehension issue in addition to not understanding the legal system in NC. But have fun with your opinions.

You want the ACC Constitution to say something that it does not.

The word "file" is not defined.

You can wish it were defined, and you may have your own definition of what "file" means, but your opinion of the meaning of "file" is meaningless.

The facts are that MD told the entire world they were leaving, and when they would leave, and that they would not pay what they owed. That's the same as "filing" a notice since it came from the CEO of the organization.

Just because an attorney for MD writes something does not make it true because he attorney is an advocate for MD in an adversarial system. Therefore the attorney for MD is paid to spin everything in MD's favor.

L--I think it is you who has reading comprehension issues. You want so badly to stick it to Maryland that you are ignoring the ACC had a clear set of rules in place to handle departures. Instead of following their own rules they bucked all of them in their rush to punish Maryland and keep anyone else from following.

Maryland followed the ACCs rules--the ACC has not clearly- no matter how much stretching you attempt to do. If Maryland cites articles from the ACC constitution in a court of law--pretty sure, yes, that means it is true no matter how badly you don't want it to be.

At this point there is no reason to continue this lawsuit and there is no reason to believe UMD is going to pay some punitive illegal buyout fee that is based on nothing and was thrown into place at the last minute despite the ACCs own rules for enacting such rule changes.

You're silly - you think you can pick out a single line of text and determine what it means outside the framework of an entire document that is loosely written. Just because a plaintiff claims something does not make it true. You seem to think it does.

The next thing you are going to assert is that we don't need the Supreme Court because we know what the Constitution says and anyone can run a photocopy of a particular line and paste it into something. So silly.

Talk about silly. I am not picking out any single line, and neither did Maryland--in fact I posted a link to the entire lawsuit. You can read it I'm certain. In the lawsuit Maryland addresses specifics of the lawsuit against them and clarifies for the court the existing contractual obligations of members set forth in the ACC constitution that directly relate to what the ACC has sued them for.

You don't want it to be true, but its all there. Read it and stop pretending that it has something to do with me. It has to do with the ACC constitution and whether or not Maryland followed the exit procedures and whether or not the ACC followed their procedures for changing exit fees, enacting exit fees, and whether or not they had grounds to extract funds from Marylands revenues, whether or not they are of a punitive nature, and when those funds if any could be withheld.

(05-23-2014 11:36 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:41 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 11:40 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:06 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  T - I think you have a reading comprehension issue in addition to not understanding the legal system in NC. But have fun with your opinions.

You want the ACC Constitution to say something that it does not.

The word "file" is not defined.

You can wish it were defined, and you may have your own definition of what "file" means, but your opinion of the meaning of "file" is meaningless.

The facts are that MD told the entire world they were leaving, and when they would leave, and that they would not pay what they owed. That's the same as "filing" a notice since it came from the CEO of the organization.

Just because an attorney for MD writes something does not make it true because he attorney is an advocate for MD in an adversarial system. Therefore the attorney for MD is paid to spin everything in MD's favor.

L--I think it is you who has reading comprehension issues. You want so badly to stick it to Maryland that you are ignoring the ACC had a clear set of rules in place to handle departures. Instead of following their own rules they bucked all of them in their rush to punish Maryland and keep anyone else from following.

Maryland followed the ACCs rules--the ACC has not clearly- no matter how much stretching you attempt to do. If Maryland cites articles from the ACC constitution in a court of law--pretty sure, yes, that means it is true no matter how badly you don't want it to be.

At this point there is no reason to continue this lawsuit and there is no reason to believe UMD is going to pay some punitive illegal buyout fee that is based on nothing and was thrown into place at the last minute despite the ACCs own rules for enacting such rule changes.

You're silly - you think you can pick out a single line of text and determine what it means outside the framework of an entire document that is loosely written. Just because a plaintiff claims something does not make it true. You seem to think it does.

The next thing you are going to assert is that we don't need the Supreme Court because we know what the Constitution says and anyone can run a photocopy of a particular line and paste it into something. So silly.

Talk about silly. I am not picking out any single line, and neither did Maryland--in fact I posted a link to the entire lawsuit. You can read it I'm certain. In the lawsuit Maryland addresses specifics of the lawsuit against them and clarifies for the court the existing contractual obligations of members set forth in the ACC constitution that directly relate to what the ACC has sued them for.

You don't want it to be true, but its all there. Read it and stop pretending that it has something to do with me. It has to do with the ACC constitution and whether or not Maryland followed the exit procedures and whether or not the ACC followed their procedures for changing exit fees, enacting exit fees, and whether or not they had grounds to extract funds from Marylands revenues, whether or not they are of a punitive nature, and when those funds if any could be withheld.

Well, then Maryland should not budge at all in mediation and confidently make that basic winning argument in court.

They so obviously have the winning position, without any doubt.

So, they should eschew settlement completely, roll the dice and put their entire case in the hands of the jury as soon as possible.

Go for the big win in court.

(05-23-2014 11:36 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:41 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 11:40 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:06 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  T - I think you have a reading comprehension issue in addition to not understanding the legal system in NC. But have fun with your opinions.

You want the ACC Constitution to say something that it does not.

The word "file" is not defined.

You can wish it were defined, and you may have your own definition of what "file" means, but your opinion of the meaning of "file" is meaningless.

The facts are that MD told the entire world they were leaving, and when they would leave, and that they would not pay what they owed. That's the same as "filing" a notice since it came from the CEO of the organization.

Just because an attorney for MD writes something does not make it true because he attorney is an advocate for MD in an adversarial system. Therefore the attorney for MD is paid to spin everything in MD's favor.

L--I think it is you who has reading comprehension issues. You want so badly to stick it to Maryland that you are ignoring the ACC had a clear set of rules in place to handle departures. Instead of following their own rules they bucked all of them in their rush to punish Maryland and keep anyone else from following.

Maryland followed the ACCs rules--the ACC has not clearly- no matter how much stretching you attempt to do. If Maryland cites articles from the ACC constitution in a court of law--pretty sure, yes, that means it is true no matter how badly you don't want it to be.

At this point there is no reason to continue this lawsuit and there is no reason to believe UMD is going to pay some punitive illegal buyout fee that is based on nothing and was thrown into place at the last minute despite the ACCs own rules for enacting such rule changes.

You're silly - you think you can pick out a single line of text and determine what it means outside the framework of an entire document that is loosely written. Just because a plaintiff claims something does not make it true. You seem to think it does.

The next thing you are going to assert is that we don't need the Supreme Court because we know what the Constitution says and anyone can run a photocopy of a particular line and paste it into something. So silly.

Talk about silly. I am not picking out any single line, and neither did Maryland--in fact I posted a link to the entire lawsuit. You can read it I'm certain. In the lawsuit Maryland addresses specifics of the lawsuit against them and clarifies for the court the existing contractual obligations of members set forth in the ACC constitution that directly relate to what the ACC has sued them for.

You don't want it to be true, but its all there. Read it and stop pretending that it has something to do with me. It has to do with the ACC constitution and whether or not Maryland followed the exit procedures and whether or not the ACC followed their procedures for changing exit fees, enacting exit fees, and whether or not they had grounds to extract funds from Marylands revenues, whether or not they are of a punitive nature, and when those funds if any could be withheld.

You seem to be reading legal documents as if you were an engineer by training and think that words have only one meaning. Have fun with that.

Poor Tbringer, you don't even comprehend that without the minutes of the meetings you don't know how and when the ACC notified Maryland of the vote to raise the exit fee. You don't even realize that the motion to raise the fee can be left open from a prior meeting then pulled onto the floor. Why do you suppose that Maryland did not offer any ACC minutes with their defense? Don't you think poor ole Maryland would have attempted to prove they were not notified? Don't you realize that the ACC has that notification in their back pocket?

If you knew how a governing board operated, you would understand that Maryland has presented a half-defense based on their verbal claims that the ACC did not follow it's procedures. MD has offered no proof to it's claims, only their opinion and as we know opinions are like an anus, everyone has one.

(05-23-2014 06:10 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Poor Tbringer, you don't even comprehend that without the minutes of the meetings you don't know how and when the ACC notified Maryland of the vote to raise the exit fee. You don't even realize that the motion to raise the fee can be left open from a prior meeting then pulled onto the floor. Why do you suppose that Maryland did not offer any ACC minutes with their defense? Don't you think poor ole Maryland would have attempted to prove they were not notified? Don't you realize that the ACC has that notification in their back pocket?

If you knew how a governing board operated, you would understand that Maryland has presented a half-defense based on their verbal claims that the ACC did not follow it's procedures. MD has offered no proof to it's claims, only their opinion and as we know opinions are like an anus, everyone has one.

So, does that mythical hanging notice also solve the ACC's problem that such changes to the Bylaws cannot take effect until July 1st the following year? Got a link supporting your special knowledge?

And why in the world would you speak so condescendingly to someone while spewing unsupported "facts" such as, "Don't you realize that the ACC has that notification in their back pocket?". Really? You obviously have no idea how litigation works. Please stop with the make believe.

What one has to consider with lumber is the fact that someone who tries to claim so much ACC insider information is also the same person who on the NC State Scout forum Pack Pride claimed that the ACC would add Canadian institutions long before they would add Syracuse. He/She tries to play the part of an insider, but evidence shows he/she has no clue.

(05-23-2014 12:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:36 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:41 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 11:40 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 10:06 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  T - I think you have a reading comprehension issue in addition to not understanding the legal system in NC. But have fun with your opinions.

You want the ACC Constitution to say something that it does not.

The word "file" is not defined.

You can wish it were defined, and you may have your own definition of what "file" means, but your opinion of the meaning of "file" is meaningless.

The facts are that MD told the entire world they were leaving, and when they would leave, and that they would not pay what they owed. That's the same as "filing" a notice since it came from the CEO of the organization.

Just because an attorney for MD writes something does not make it true because he attorney is an advocate for MD in an adversarial system. Therefore the attorney for MD is paid to spin everything in MD's favor.

L--I think it is you who has reading comprehension issues. You want so badly to stick it to Maryland that you are ignoring the ACC had a clear set of rules in place to handle departures. Instead of following their own rules they bucked all of them in their rush to punish Maryland and keep anyone else from following.

Maryland followed the ACCs rules--the ACC has not clearly- no matter how much stretching you attempt to do. If Maryland cites articles from the ACC constitution in a court of law--pretty sure, yes, that means it is true no matter how badly you don't want it to be.

At this point there is no reason to continue this lawsuit and there is no reason to believe UMD is going to pay some punitive illegal buyout fee that is based on nothing and was thrown into place at the last minute despite the ACCs own rules for enacting such rule changes.

You're silly - you think you can pick out a single line of text and determine what it means outside the framework of an entire document that is loosely written. Just because a plaintiff claims something does not make it true. You seem to think it does.

The next thing you are going to assert is that we don't need the Supreme Court because we know what the Constitution says and anyone can run a photocopy of a particular line and paste it into something. So silly.

Talk about silly. I am not picking out any single line, and neither did Maryland--in fact I posted a link to the entire lawsuit. You can read it I'm certain. In the lawsuit Maryland addresses specifics of the lawsuit against them and clarifies for the court the existing contractual obligations of members set forth in the ACC constitution that directly relate to what the ACC has sued them for.

You don't want it to be true, but its all there. Read it and stop pretending that it has something to do with me. It has to do with the ACC constitution and whether or not Maryland followed the exit procedures and whether or not the ACC followed their procedures for changing exit fees, enacting exit fees, and whether or not they had grounds to extract funds from Marylands revenues, whether or not they are of a punitive nature, and when those funds if any could be withheld.

Well, then Maryland should not budge at all in mediation and confidently make that basic winning argument in court.

They so obviously have the winning position, without any doubt.

So, they should eschew settlement completely, roll the dice and put their entire case in the hands of the jury as soon as possible.

Go for the big win in court.

How long would it take to do that Terry even if they did have an absolute win on their hands? I am not saying they do, I'm just saying that even if they do, the ACC may have done a good enough job at stalling this whole process to force the Big Ten to have to pressure Maryland to accept a mediated settlement.

(05-24-2014 09:15 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 12:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 11:36 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  

(05-23-2014 10:41 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(05-22-2014 11:40 AM)Tbringer Wrote:  L--I think it is you who has reading comprehension issues. You want so badly to stick it to Maryland that you are ignoring the ACC had a clear set of rules in place to handle departures. Instead of following their own rules they bucked all of them in their rush to punish Maryland and keep anyone else from following.

Maryland followed the ACCs rules--the ACC has not clearly- no matter how much stretching you attempt to do. If Maryland cites articles from the ACC constitution in a court of law--pretty sure, yes, that means it is true no matter how badly you don't want it to be.

At this point there is no reason to continue this lawsuit and there is no reason to believe UMD is going to pay some punitive illegal buyout fee that is based on nothing and was thrown into place at the last minute despite the ACCs own rules for enacting such rule changes.

You're silly - you think you can pick out a single line of text and determine what it means outside the framework of an entire document that is loosely written. Just because a plaintiff claims something does not make it true. You seem to think it does.

The next thing you are going to assert is that we don't need the Supreme Court because we know what the Constitution says and anyone can run a photocopy of a particular line and paste it into something. So silly.

Talk about silly. I am not picking out any single line, and neither did Maryland--in fact I posted a link to the entire lawsuit. You can read it I'm certain. In the lawsuit Maryland addresses specifics of the lawsuit against them and clarifies for the court the existing contractual obligations of members set forth in the ACC constitution that directly relate to what the ACC has sued them for.

You don't want it to be true, but its all there. Read it and stop pretending that it has something to do with me. It has to do with the ACC constitution and whether or not Maryland followed the exit procedures and whether or not the ACC followed their procedures for changing exit fees, enacting exit fees, and whether or not they had grounds to extract funds from Marylands revenues, whether or not they are of a punitive nature, and when those funds if any could be withheld.

Well, then Maryland should not budge at all in mediation and confidently make that basic winning argument in court.

They so obviously have the winning position, without any doubt.

So, they should eschew settlement completely, roll the dice and put their entire case in the hands of the jury as soon as possible.

Go for the big win in court.

How long would it take to do that Terry even if they did have an absolute win on their hands? I am not saying they do, I'm just saying that even if they do, the ACC may have done a good enough job at stalling this whole process to force the Big Ten to have to pressure Maryland to accept a mediated settlement.

The Big 10 doesn't care. This is just between Maryland and the ACC.