Did they ask for an extension or something? Did the MD AG decide not to appeal the verdict? Seems like I read they had 30 days to file an appeal. If the verdict was handed down Feb. 18th, wouldn't the 30 days be up already? Haven't heard any news on this.

UMd may as well get out their checkbook.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02...n-immunity

Quote:According to a spokesman for Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler, Guilford County Superior Court Judge John O. Craig III denied a motion filed by attorneys for Maryland last month. The motion said that the ACC suit was invalid.

David Paulson, Gansler's spokesman, said Monday night that "the state is going to be be considering its options in light of this ruling."

The attorneys for the university have 30 days to appeal Monday's ruling.

(04-05-2013 09:40 PM)Dasville Wrote:  http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02...n-immunity

Quote:According to a spokesman for Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler, Guilford County Superior Court Judge John O. Craig III denied a motion filed by attorneys for Maryland last month. The motion said that the ACC suit was invalid.

David Paulson, Gansler's spokesman, said Monday night that "the state is going to be be considering its options in light of this ruling."

The attorneys for the university have 30 days to appeal Monday's ruling.

They must have decided not to appeal.

(04-05-2013 11:20 PM)ChrisLords Wrote:  

(04-05-2013 09:40 PM)Dasville Wrote:  http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-02...n-immunity

Quote:According to a spokesman for Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler, Guilford County Superior Court Judge John O. Craig III denied a motion filed by attorneys for Maryland last month. The motion said that the ACC suit was invalid.

David Paulson, Gansler's spokesman, said Monday night that "the state is going to be be considering its options in light of this ruling."

The attorneys for the university have 30 days to appeal Monday's ruling.

They must have decided not to appeal.

Just because the ruling stated the lawsuit can go forward does not mean the ACC will win. We will have to see what gets exposed by each party. I think Maryland will pay a hefty amount though.

The big 10 already gave them 20 - 30 mil for "travel" expenses. I think they'll be alright either way.

won't the ACC have to try to enroll it in Maryland? And, you can't lien state property so...

What happens were MD to say, "that's nice... we still are not paying."

(04-06-2013 09:09 AM)AnnapolisPirate Wrote:  won't the ACC have to try to enroll it in Maryland? And, you can't lien state property so...

What happens were MD to say, "that's nice... we still are not paying."

Then suddenly, Maryland court orders get lost in the mail on the way to NC.

I have no opinion about the legal merits of the Maryland/ACC lawsuit. But if a final judgment is entered and Maryland decides not to abide by it, things will get Real Ugly, Real Fast.

Acc will win in nc. UMD will win in MD. Federal Court will have to get involved if they can't work it out

The conference that dodged a bullet here is the B12. If sovereign immunity was upheld the only two schools that couldn't use that precedent to break the GOR is TCU and Baylor.

(04-06-2013 09:09 AM)AnnapolisPirate Wrote:  won't the ACC have to try to enroll it in Maryland? And, you can't lien state property so...

What happens were MD to say, "that's nice... we still are not paying."

Isn't the ACC withholding millions of dollars due to Maryland to pay the exit fee?

The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution says that a valid, final judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction in one state must be enforced by other states.

Correct me if I am wrong Terry, but couldn't the ACC use that judgement to have part of their payouts from the B10 garnished? So if Maryland says screw you we ain't paying, the ACC would withhold their conference disbursement from this year and have the remainder withheld from future revenues from the B10.

(04-06-2013 01:35 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Correct me if I am wrong Terry, but couldn't the ACC use that judgement to have part of their payouts from the B10 garnished? So if Maryland says screw you we ain't paying, the ACC would withhold their conference disbursement from this year and have the remainder withheld from future revenues from the B10.

The ACC has already taken that step, Shannon. Did you miss the memo?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-maryland/

Quote:So far, the ACC has withheld $3,067,255.27 in Maryland’s “respective share of the initial distribution of gross television revenues for 2012-13,” according to a letter from ACC associate commissioner Jeff Elliot to Athletics Director Kevin Anderson dated Dec. 14, 2012.

(04-06-2013 01:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 01:35 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Correct me if I am wrong Terry, but couldn't the ACC use that judgement to have part of their payouts from the B10 garnished? So if Maryland says screw you we ain't paying, the ACC would withhold their conference disbursement from this year and have the remainder withheld from future revenues from the B10.

The ACC has already taken that step, Shannon. Did you miss the memo?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-maryland/

Quote:So far, the ACC has withheld $3,067,255.27 in Maryland’s “respective share of the initial distribution of gross television revenues for 2012-13,” according to a letter from ACC associate commissioner Jeff Elliot to Athletics Director Kevin Anderson dated Dec. 14, 2012.

I know they are withholding their disbursement for 2012-2013, but if that covered all $51 million, they wouldn't be leaving. My question was more geared toward recouping the remainder of the payment which will probably by $25-30 Million.

(04-06-2013 02:31 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 01:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 01:35 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Correct me if I am wrong Terry, but couldn't the ACC use that judgement to have part of their payouts from the B10 garnished? So if Maryland says screw you we ain't paying, the ACC would withhold their conference disbursement from this year and have the remainder withheld from future revenues from the B10.

The ACC has already taken that step, Shannon. Did you miss the memo?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-maryland/

Quote:So far, the ACC has withheld $3,067,255.27 in Maryland’s “respective share of the initial distribution of gross television revenues for 2012-13,” according to a letter from ACC associate commissioner Jeff Elliot to Athletics Director Kevin Anderson dated Dec. 14, 2012.

I know they are withholding their disbursement for 2012-2013, but if that covered all $51 million, they wouldn't be leaving. My question was more geared toward recouping the remainder of the payment which will probably by $25-30 Million.

The court case has yet to be settled, and Maryland has yet to leave the conference. So worrying about getting a payment for something that has yet to happen seems a bit premature. Don't you think?

Does any store ask you to pay for something you haven't received yet? No. But it seems like ACC policy is to do just that. Why should Maryland pay their exit fee when they haven't begun to exit? In a similar vein, why should the ACC withhold Maryland's money for something they have yet to do? It seems immature, punitive, and petty to me. Why is the ACC so insecure?

(04-06-2013 02:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 02:31 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 01:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(04-06-2013 01:35 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Correct me if I am wrong Terry, but couldn't the ACC use that judgement to have part of their payouts from the B10 garnished? So if Maryland says screw you we ain't paying, the ACC would withhold their conference disbursement from this year and have the remainder withheld from future revenues from the B10.

The ACC has already taken that step, Shannon. Did you miss the memo?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...-maryland/

Quote:So far, the ACC has withheld $3,067,255.27 in Maryland’s “respective share of the initial distribution of gross television revenues for 2012-13,” according to a letter from ACC associate commissioner Jeff Elliot to Athletics Director Kevin Anderson dated Dec. 14, 2012.

I know they are withholding their disbursement for 2012-2013, but if that covered all $51 million, they wouldn't be leaving. My question was more geared toward recouping the remainder of the payment which will probably by $25-30 Million.

The court case has yet to be settled, and Maryland has yet to leave the conference. So worrying about getting a payment for something that has yet to happen seems a bit premature. Don't you think?

Does any store ask you to pay for something you haven't received yet? No. But it seems like ACC policy is to do just that. Why should Maryland pay their exit fee when they haven't begun to exit? In a similar vein, why should the ACC withhold Maryland's money for something they have yet to do? It seems immature, punitive, and petty to me. Why is the ACC so insecure?

i think it has more to with Maryland's reluctance to make arrangements to pay, I understand they want to reduce it as much as possible, but the ACC's stance so far is all or nothing & it looks like they are digging in to make that happen.

(04-06-2013 02:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  ... why should the ACC withhold Maryland's money for something they have yet to do?

If Maryland has submitted their official notice, then its something that they have started the process of doing.

But August 15th is the deadline for giving notice to leave the following July, so even if other schools would be internally strongly inclined to accept and offer another conference is strongly inclined to make, there's a lot of incentive to not make it official just yet.

(04-06-2013 02:54 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  The court case has yet to be settled, and Maryland has yet to leave the conference. So worrying about getting a payment for something that has yet to happen seems a bit premature. Don't you think?

Does any store ask you to pay for something you haven't received yet? No. But it seems like ACC policy is to do just that. Why should Maryland pay their exit fee when they haven't begun to exit? In a similar vein, why should the ACC withhold Maryland's money for something they have yet to do? It seems immature, punitive, and petty to me. Why is the ACC so insecure?

The court case was filed because Maryland pretty much came out and said they weren't paying. As far as the withholding goes, the ACC believes them to owe a debt that they are by there own admission refusing to pay. Withholding in this case seems pretty prudent to me. If your employer overpays you and you refuse to write a check to cover the overpayment, how do you think they will recoup the money? If you said, withhold it from my future earnings, go to the head of the class. However it seems to you, this is a prudent move by the ACC. Maryland has accepted an invitation to the B1G, but hasn't formally resigned from the ACC. Forthrightness and honesty aren't their strong suit in this case.

The court case was filed because Maryland said they weren't paying the increased exit payment. The original $20 million isn't in question. There is a difference...

So if a team must notify the ACC by Aug. 15 in order to leave by July of the following year, I guess the Terps decided not to appeal jurisdiction in order to speed the process along? The ACC could make this a very long 5 months. Appeals in both courts could drag this thing well into the summer.