(02-14-2022 04:08 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  Hey...any of you insiders know how much the premature exiting members offered to leave?

3 Camo Jeeps from Bass Pro with extra Batteries
USM has to give up the Tourney
ODU has to give up the Tennis Tourney
Marshall just has turn over their mascot

I'm messing around.

I dunno. I'm not sure that's ever been discussed. I'm sure each school had a "not to exceed" amount and started with a number a few hundred thousand lower than that to see what it'd take. That's my opinion.

(02-14-2022 02:50 PM)gdunn 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).

Your logic is flawed, goes on to give a logic that is flawed even worse.

The fact is this. There's a contract. States must give a 14 month notice of departure right? Guess what you don't have that in a mortgage. You're not done until you pay it off, so back off the mortgage talk.

This is more like an ongoing services contract. You can end it any time you want but you must give notice unless you terminate early then you negotiate the terms at that point.

The issue at hand and you keep glossing over this because, well I don't know. Bylaws state that there will be a financial/monetary penalty if you leave early. Problem is there is not a penalty described. Because there was mention of the penalty lawyers have looked at this and I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the best way to do this is to make an offer. Offer made. The office never communicated back. Until they issued a press release. Not back to the schools, a vague press release.

This will end up being determined by either a judge or arbitration panel. It's not like we're not trying follow the contract, we are, but when the other party is not communicating you do what you have to do. CUSA felt that issuing the schedules would end the conversation, but in fact it started a bigger conversation.

We're not paying a mortgage, we're rendering a service. CUSA is not going to "repo" the schools, they're going to look for financial damages which they have refused to give. When this goes before someone for judgement, CUSA will have to prove damages in the amount they think they're owed and will have to prove why that is. The SBC will show that in December and other letters sent to CUSA they offered to end the contract by offering up x number of dollars and no communication came back from CUSA.

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.

(02-14-2022 03:54 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(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?

That assumes the few more bucks materializes. It is entirely possibly any potential court-awarded damages will be less than what the schools would’ve paid voluntarily. We’ll never know that since CUSA didn’t bother to find out what the latter figure was.

(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....

(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.

(02-14-2022 01:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 01:03 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 11:29 PM)benny_t Wrote:  

(02-13-2022 10:17 PM)Twon Wrote:  The SB3 announced their early departure 3 days before the release of the football schedules. That is unprecedented as far as I can remember

Did you not see in the 3 letters the schools sent out that we notified CUSA offices in December that we planned to leave early. Cusa officials ghosted the 3 schools and then sent out schedules anyway.

Big difference - WVU filed suit 10 months before so they were in contact with the Big East before then.

The SB3 issued a statement 3 days before the schedule release, if they knew that CUSA was committed to following the agreed upon bylaws they should have acted in December.

Anyway this is viewed it favors CUSA. I’m actually surprised how well CUSA handled this situation.

CUSA played the long game in this situation
The SB3 will not be able show any cause to move early, They have been allowed to compete in all sports, All the conference tournaments are still intact (Southern Miss).

And The abrupt move 3 days before the schedule release will show duress to the other 11 conference members.

I think the SB3 have really miscalculated this one and will paid dearly even more so than WVU

December to February 11th is 3 days?

Holy cow!

Frisco was notified in December and did nothing.

Shouldn't you be on Twitter making up random things like how NDSU didn't turn down CUSA?

Getting the All4One vibes too, huh?

(02-14-2022 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:50 PM)gdunn 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).

Your logic is flawed, goes on to give a logic that is flawed even worse.

The fact is this. There's a contract. States must give a 14 month notice of departure right? Guess what you don't have that in a mortgage. You're not done until you pay it off, so back off the mortgage talk.

This is more like an ongoing services contract. You can end it any time you want but you must give notice unless you terminate early then you negotiate the terms at that point.

The issue at hand and you keep glossing over this because, well I don't know. Bylaws state that there will be a financial/monetary penalty if you leave early. Problem is there is not a penalty described. Because there was mention of the penalty lawyers have looked at this and I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the best way to do this is to make an offer. Offer made. The office never communicated back. Until they issued a press release. Not back to the schools, a vague press release.

This will end up being determined by either a judge or arbitration panel. It's not like we're not trying follow the contract, we are, but when the other party is not communicating you do what you have to do. CUSA felt that issuing the schedules would end the conversation, but in fact it started a bigger conversation.

We're not paying a mortgage, we're rendering a service. CUSA is not going to "repo" the schools, they're going to look for financial damages which they have refused to give. When this goes before someone for judgement, CUSA will have to prove damages in the amount they think they're owed and will have to prove why that is. The SBC will show that in December and other letters sent to CUSA they offered to end the contract by offering up x number of dollars and no communication came back from CUSA.

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.

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?

(02-14-2022 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:50 PM)gdunn 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).

Your logic is flawed, goes on to give a logic that is flawed even worse.

The fact is this. There's a contract. States must give a 14 month notice of departure right? Guess what you don't have that in a mortgage. You're not done until you pay it off, so back off the mortgage talk.

This is more like an ongoing services contract. You can end it any time you want but you must give notice unless you terminate early then you negotiate the terms at that point.

The issue at hand and you keep glossing over this because, well I don't know. Bylaws state that there will be a financial/monetary penalty if you leave early. Problem is there is not a penalty described. Because there was mention of the penalty lawyers have looked at this and I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the best way to do this is to make an offer. Offer made. The office never communicated back. Until they issued a press release. Not back to the schools, a vague press release.

This will end up being determined by either a judge or arbitration panel. It's not like we're not trying follow the contract, we are, but when the other party is not communicating you do what you have to do. CUSA felt that issuing the schedules would end the conversation, but in fact it started a bigger conversation.

We're not paying a mortgage, we're rendering a service. CUSA is not going to "repo" the schools, they're going to look for financial damages which they have refused to give. When this goes before someone for judgement, CUSA will have to prove damages in the amount they think they're owed and will have to prove why that is. The SBC will show that in December and other letters sent to CUSA they offered to end the contract by offering up x number of dollars and no communication came back from CUSA.

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’re are right, It is quite fascinating how misinformed perspectives are form on the internet. The Sunbelt forum seems to be a groupthink echo chamber that reinforces misinformation.

Just like you said the bylaws ratified by all members in 2016 and spells out explicitly that an injunction can be filed and it is the best remedy

The SB3 better hope the CUSA doesn’t file an injunction

(02-14-2022 04:23 PM)HarborPointe Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 03:54 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(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?

That assumes the few more bucks materializes. It is entirely possibly any potential court-awarded damages will be less than what the schools would’ve paid voluntarily. We’ll never know that since CUSA didn’t bother to find out what the latter figure was.

Well, sure. Less money than we might otherwise have had (plus an early departure) would be a worse outcome.

But I was just reacting to your first quoted comment above.

(02-14-2022 04:41 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:50 PM)gdunn 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).

Your logic is flawed, goes on to give a logic that is flawed even worse.

The fact is this. There's a contract. States must give a 14 month notice of departure right? Guess what you don't have that in a mortgage. You're not done until you pay it off, so back off the mortgage talk.

This is more like an ongoing services contract. You can end it any time you want but you must give notice unless you terminate early then you negotiate the terms at that point.

The issue at hand and you keep glossing over this because, well I don't know. Bylaws state that there will be a financial/monetary penalty if you leave early. Problem is there is not a penalty described. Because there was mention of the penalty lawyers have looked at this and I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the best way to do this is to make an offer. Offer made. The office never communicated back. Until they issued a press release. Not back to the schools, a vague press release.

This will end up being determined by either a judge or arbitration panel. It's not like we're not trying follow the contract, we are, but when the other party is not communicating you do what you have to do. CUSA felt that issuing the schedules would end the conversation, but in fact it started a bigger conversation.

We're not paying a mortgage, we're rendering a service. CUSA is not going to "repo" the schools, they're going to look for financial damages which they have refused to give. When this goes before someone for judgement, CUSA will have to prove damages in the amount they think they're owed and will have to prove why that is. The SBC will show that in December and other letters sent to CUSA they offered to end the contract by offering up x number of dollars and no communication came back from CUSA.

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.

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

(02-14-2022 02:42 PM)Nugget49er Wrote:  I am not sure why the SB3 felt this this was a hill worth dying on. Staying in CUSA a few more months would have allowed them to focus their staff and money on things that will matter more long term, rather than getting into a fight about one season for a few sports.

It has been interesting that most of the AAC6 don't seem to care much about CUSA and posting here, even though we are staying around longer. Instead of checking in several times per day, now I probably visit once or twice a week. The SB3 dominates the discussions here, yet they can't wait to be gone. I can only assume they will never leave this board, as their fellow SB posters very clearly live here part time and always have. I just don't understand that. At some point I hope we can give this board over to the teams staying in CUSA and the new teams joining.

First, I agree with most of your post. I left the two paragraphs above so I could answer the questions asked.
Why was this "a hill worth dying on"? Unless the fee for leaving early is larger than the Sun Belt payout, leaving early earns us money. Even if it cost of ALL of the SB payout for the 22-23 year, the travel costs (~ $500k for USM) will still make it financially better. Add in more tickets sold due to the excitement of a conference change and it's all around a better deal for our schools to move next school year.

Why are we posting more than the AAC6? Well, USM and Marshall fans on this board might out number all of you anyway. Then add that right now things are happening. We've known since November that our schools were working to make this our last year in C-USA. Now they have made that public and its causing controversy and conversation. For us, this is an exciting time and the C-USA board is where there are actual discussion about it. We are talking about it on the individual school boards and the Sun Belt board, but no where else has this many posts about it, nor are there so many dissenting opinions to debate.

Edited to add, one UNT fan (who never posted on this board for any UNT sporting event) has posted as much as any other school's fans combined in this thread, so not all of the AAC fans are so disinterested in C-USA I guess?

(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.

To be precise, the sb3 can leave with: a) an exit fee; *and* b) proper notice.

Notice the *and*.

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

What is an injustice is that one side simply thinks that only one of the two prerequisites is sufficient.

Quote:But to hell with what it says.

Actually, my stance is precisely *what* it says. Nothing more, nothing less mind you. I am not magically disappearing one of the prerequisites.

(02-14-2022 04:50 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:41 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:50 PM)gdunn 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).

Your logic is flawed, goes on to give a logic that is flawed even worse.

The fact is this. There's a contract. States must give a 14 month notice of departure right? Guess what you don't have that in a mortgage. You're not done until you pay it off, so back off the mortgage talk.

This is more like an ongoing services contract. You can end it any time you want but you must give notice unless you terminate early then you negotiate the terms at that point.

The issue at hand and you keep glossing over this because, well I don't know. Bylaws state that there will be a financial/monetary penalty if you leave early. Problem is there is not a penalty described. Because there was mention of the penalty lawyers have looked at this and I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the best way to do this is to make an offer. Offer made. The office never communicated back. Until they issued a press release. Not back to the schools, a vague press release.

This will end up being determined by either a judge or arbitration panel. It's not like we're not trying follow the contract, we are, but when the other party is not communicating you do what you have to do. CUSA felt that issuing the schedules would end the conversation, but in fact it started a bigger conversation.

We're not paying a mortgage, we're rendering a service. CUSA is not going to "repo" the schools, they're going to look for financial damages which they have refused to give. When this goes before someone for judgement, CUSA will have to prove damages in the amount they think they're owed and will have to prove why that is. The SBC will show that in December and other letters sent to CUSA they offered to end the contract by offering up x number of dollars and no communication came back from CUSA.

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.

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.

(02-14-2022 03:15 PM)BlueRaiderBoy Wrote:  

(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

That's EXACTLY what the SB3 want. Give us the $# we need to get out NOW. It's simple. Acting like you've "caught" us when it's 100% what we've said we want all along is idiotic.

Are you the 3rd or 4th person I've personally said this to in this thread? With multiple other USM, ODU and Marshall fans saying the same thing?

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

(02-14-2022 04:50 PM)Twon Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:41 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 04:19 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-14-2022 02:50 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Your logic is flawed, goes on to give a logic that is flawed even worse.

The fact is this. There's a contract. States must give a 14 month notice of departure right? Guess what you don't have that in a mortgage. You're not done until you pay it off, so back off the mortgage talk.

This is more like an ongoing services contract. You can end it any time you want but you must give notice unless you terminate early then you negotiate the terms at that point.

The issue at hand and you keep glossing over this because, well I don't know. Bylaws state that there will be a financial/monetary penalty if you leave early. Problem is there is not a penalty described. Because there was mention of the penalty lawyers have looked at this and I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the best way to do this is to make an offer. Offer made. The office never communicated back. Until they issued a press release. Not back to the schools, a vague press release.

This will end up being determined by either a judge or arbitration panel. It's not like we're not trying follow the contract, we are, but when the other party is not communicating you do what you have to do. CUSA felt that issuing the schedules would end the conversation, but in fact it started a bigger conversation.

We're not paying a mortgage, we're rendering a service. CUSA is not going to "repo" the schools, they're going to look for financial damages which they have refused to give. When this goes before someone for judgement, CUSA will have to prove damages in the amount they think they're owed and will have to prove why that is. The SBC will show that in December and other letters sent to CUSA they offered to end the contract by offering up x number of dollars and no communication came back from CUSA.

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.

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.

(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"?

My question is will common law or civil law dictate the outcome?

(02-14-2022 05:53 PM)FAU Connoisseur! Wrote:  My question is will common law or civil law dictate the outcome?

Not sure all we care about is we have UL , USA, stAte and Ga southern at home with this year and tickets go on sale 3/1

(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

(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:  

(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.

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.