(05-24-2013 02:39 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:48 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And somehow that "fee" is far less that what a school would pay after signing a GOR. So Maryland is whining that the exit fee is ridiculous but a GOR is not. They are whining about having their movement restricted with an GOR is the ultimate in conference restriction right now.

Maryland would say that they agreed to the GOR, so any restrictions are self-imposed.

The ACC's $50 exit fee is a restriction placed on them by others. It's totally different.

I agree to an extent JunkYard and respect your opinion, and I still wonder what the difference between $20 million and $52 million is? No where do I read that MD opposed the exit fee prior to the addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh.
No lawsuit was filed by MD when raised to $20 million or the proposal to calculate the exit fee by 1.5 x the AOB (or whatever the factor).
What I have a hard time coming to grips with is that it "appears" that Loh used the ACC's exit fee and terms as leverage against the B1G in negotiating their entrance. No other team has been/was "fronted" money against future earnings in order to join as far as has been reported. No other team has gotten/going to receive a travel premium for entrance in the B1G.
I've just got a problem with Maryland "crying foul" when they used that same ball to hit a homerun.

(05-24-2013 03:04 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:48 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And somehow that "fee" is far less that what a school would pay after signing a GOR. So Maryland is whining that the exit fee is ridiculous but a GOR is not. They are whining about having their movement restricted when a GOR is the ultimate in conference restriction right now.

From what I understand the exit fee (liquidated damages) has to be in the ball park of an estimation of actual damages. If the two aren't anywhere close then the fee becomes "punitive," which is an unlawful restraint.

The GoR is a completely different legal monster which makes no attempt to estimate damages.

So they chose 3x the operating budget to come up with 52 mil. There is precedent for suing for potential damages and not just actual. The ACC could lose 100s of millions of dollars if the correct schools leave to go to other conferences. However, you can't say school A is worth X and school B is worth Y. You have to come up with one number a make it across the entire conference.

(05-24-2013 03:13 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  However, you can't say school A is worth X and school B is worth Y. You have to come up with one number a make it across the entire conference.

My understand of the GoR is that it effectively does penalize schools right in line with the value of their media contracts; which is probably why there was a reluctance to getting it done sooner.

(05-24-2013 03:04 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:48 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And somehow that "fee" is far less that what a school would pay after signing a GOR. So Maryland is whining that the exit fee is ridiculous but a GOR is not. They are whining about having their movement restricted with an GOR is the ultimate in conference restriction right now.

From what I understand the exit fee (liquidated damages) has to be in the ball park of an estimation of actual damages. If the two aren't anywhere close then the fee becomes "punitive," which is an unlawful restraint.

The GoR is a completely different legal monster which makes no attempt to estimate damages.

Unless you try to get out of it. Using Maryland's argument, the GOR is punitive and if it wasn't, others would try to get out of it as well.

(05-24-2013 03:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  No other team has been/was "fronted" money against future earnings in order to join as far as has been reported.

No other school has had its conference paycheck withheld even though there has been no official intent to withdraw submitted. The bylaws seem to indicat that payments can be withheld only after official notice is submitted.

(05-24-2013 03:31 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  No other team has been/was "fronted" money against future earnings in order to join as far as has been reported.

No other school has had its conference paycheck withheld even though there has been no official intent to withdraw submitted. The bylaws seem to indicat that payments can be withheld only after official notice is submitted.

MD has applied and has been accepted into the CIC. They will become full members on July 1st of this year. Any schools in the ACC/SEC/Big 12/any other sports conference besides Chicago part of the CIC? Has a B1G schedule been released with Maryland on it in any sport? Both Athletically and Academically, MD is "in" the B1G.

(05-24-2013 03:31 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  No other team has been/was "fronted" money against future earnings in order to join as far as has been reported.

No other school has had its conference paycheck withheld even though there has been no official intent to withdraw submitted. The bylaws seem to indicat that payments can be withheld only after official notice is submitted.

The way Maryland "notified" the ACC should hold up in court. There were televised press conferences. BIG has already released their 2014 football schedule with Maryland on it. Maryland is set to join the CIC in July. That's notification enough.

(05-24-2013 03:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:31 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  No other team has been/was "fronted" money against future earnings in order to join as far as has been reported.

No other school has had its conference paycheck withheld even though there has been no official intent to withdraw submitted. The bylaws seem to indicat that payments can be withheld only after official notice is submitted.

MD has applied and has been accepted into the CIC. They will become full members on July 1st of this year. Any schools in the ACC/SEC/Big 12/any other sports conference besides Chicago part of the CIC? Has a B1G schedule been released with Maryland on it in any sport? Both Athletically and Academically, MD is "in" the B1G.

Both Maryland and Rutgers are on the 2014 football schedule which was released to the public, yet neither school has completely settled their negotiation package from their former conference. A year ago, that would have been a huge deal out of fear of reprisal. Why is this not that big of a deal this time around? I remember the XII not wanting to release their schedule because of WVU's case with the Big East. Same thing with Missouri and the SEC.

(05-24-2013 03:31 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  No other team has been/was "fronted" money against future earnings in order to join as far as has been reported.

No other school has had its conference paycheck withheld even though there has been no official intent to withdraw submitted. The bylaws seem to indicat that payments can be withheld only after official notice is submitted.

Look at the timing of the two events.

(05-24-2013 03:00 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:51 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:39 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:48 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And somehow that "fee" is far less that what a school would pay after signing a GOR. So Maryland is whining that the exit fee is ridiculous but a GOR is not. They are whining about having their movement restricted with an GOR is the ultimate in conference restriction right now.

Maryland would say that they agreed to the GOR, so any restrictions are self-imposed.

The ACC's $50 exit fee is a restriction placed on them by others. It's totally different.

They also agreed to abide by the By-Laws of the conference. So if the By-Laws of the conference state they don't greyshirt athletes and Maryland disagreed or voted against it, they have the right to ignore that particular by-law even though by joining the conference they agreed to abide by those by-laws?

The strongest part I see in their case, if this is true, is their claim that "the ACC violated its constitutional provisions by not submitting the fee as an amendment in writing to its Constitution and Bylaws Committee for review, and not circulating the plan to members at least 15 days before the meeting."

Cheers,
Neil[/i]

I think the bylaws also say they can bypass that if the majority of the institutions agree.

Which is why I put in the caveat of "if true". It's been my limited legal experience that judges love to find procedural issues to through cases out on rather than have to make the tough decisions about the overall merits of a case.

BC won on their exit fee due to procedural issues.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-24-2013 04:24 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:00 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:51 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:39 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:48 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And somehow that "fee" is far less that what a school would pay after signing a GOR. So Maryland is whining that the exit fee is ridiculous but a GOR is not. They are whining about having their movement restricted with an GOR is the ultimate in conference restriction right now.

Maryland would say that they agreed to the GOR, so any restrictions are self-imposed.

The ACC's $50 exit fee is a restriction placed on them by others. It's totally different.

They also agreed to abide by the By-Laws of the conference. So if the By-Laws of the conference state they don't greyshirt athletes and Maryland disagreed or voted against it, they have the right to ignore that particular by-law even though by joining the conference they agreed to abide by those by-laws?

The strongest part I see in their case, if this is true, is their claim that "the ACC violated its constitutional provisions by not submitting the fee as an amendment in writing to its Constitution and Bylaws Committee for review, and not circulating the plan to members at least 15 days before the meeting."

Cheers,
Neil[/i]

I think the bylaws also say they can bypass that if the majority of the institutions agree.

Which is why I put in the caveat of "if true". It's been my limited legal experience that judges love to find procedural issues to through cases out on rather than have to make the tough decisions about the overall merits of a case.

BC won on their exit fee due to procedural issues.

Cheers,
Neil

This particular motion is about where the decision should be made, nothing else.

(05-24-2013 04:46 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 04:24 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:00 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:51 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:39 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  Maryland would say that they agreed to the GOR, so any restrictions are self-imposed.

The ACC's $50 exit fee is a restriction placed on them by others. It's totally different.

They also agreed to abide by the By-Laws of the conference. So if the By-Laws of the conference state they don't greyshirt athletes and Maryland disagreed or voted against it, they have the right to ignore that particular by-law even though by joining the conference they agreed to abide by those by-laws?

The strongest part I see in their case, if this is true, is their claim that "the ACC violated its constitutional provisions by not submitting the fee as an amendment in writing to its Constitution and Bylaws Committee for review, and not circulating the plan to members at least 15 days before the meeting."

Cheers,
Neil[/i]

I think the bylaws also say they can bypass that if the majority of the institutions agree.

Which is why I put in the caveat of "if true". It's been my limited legal experience that judges love to find procedural issues to through cases out on rather than have to make the tough decisions about the overall merits of a case.

BC won on their exit fee due to procedural issues.

Cheers,
Neil

This particular motion is about where the decision should be made, nothing else.

Understood. I'm more focused on the final outcome which is where I see this thread has been for several posts now and not so much THIS particular part of the case. Both sides though in this particular court presentation have basically shown their hands as to how they will argue the actual case itself once it's decided which court has jurisdiction, assuming no settlement.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-24-2013 02:51 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:39 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:48 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And somehow that "fee" is far less that what a school would pay after signing a GOR. So Maryland is whining that the exit fee is ridiculous but a GOR is not. They are whining about having their movement restricted with an GOR is the ultimate in conference restriction right now.

Maryland would say that they agreed to the GOR, so any restrictions are self-imposed.

The ACC's $50 exit fee is a restriction placed on them by others. It's totally different.

They also agreed to abide by the By-Laws of the conference. So if the By-Laws of the conference state they don't greyshirt athletes and Maryland disagreed or voted against it, they have the right to ignore that particular by-law even though by joining the conference they agreed to abide by those by-laws?

The strongest part I see in their case, if this is true, is their claim that "the ACC violated its constitutional provisions by not submitting the fee as an amendment in writing to its Constitution and Bylaws Committee for review, and not circulating the plan to members at least 15 days before the meeting."

Cheers,
Neil[/i]

That really goes to the point I'm trying to make. Changing the exit fee from $20 million to $50+ million is more than just some procedural garden-variety change to the agreement. Because it's such a huge sum, it constitutes a basic and fundamental change to the entire partnership.

I think that is the quick and dirty version of their argument, and I think it has some merit. We'll see what happens I guess.

(05-25-2013 05:41 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:51 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:39 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:48 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And somehow that "fee" is far less that what a school would pay after signing a GOR. So Maryland is whining that the exit fee is ridiculous but a GOR is not. They are whining about having their movement restricted with an GOR is the ultimate in conference restriction right now.

Maryland would say that they agreed to the GOR, so any restrictions are self-imposed.

The ACC's $50 exit fee is a restriction placed on them by others. It's totally different.

They also agreed to abide by the By-Laws of the conference. So if the By-Laws of the conference state they don't greyshirt athletes and Maryland disagreed or voted against it, they have the right to ignore that particular by-law even though by joining the conference they agreed to abide by those by-laws?

The strongest part I see in their case, if this is true, is their claim that "the ACC violated its constitutional provisions by not submitting the fee as an amendment in writing to its Constitution and Bylaws Committee for review, and not circulating the plan to members at least 15 days before the meeting."

Cheers,
Neil[/i]

That really goes to the point I'm trying to make. Changing the exit fee from $20 million to $50+ million is more than just some procedural garden-variety change to the agreement. Because it's such a huge sum, it constitutes a basic and fundamental change to the entire partnership.

I think that is the quick and dirty version of their argument, and I think it has some merit. We'll see what happens I guess.

I do think the ACC has some merit in raising the fee that high. The ACC had recently signed the OB agreement. They knew they would get more money with the upcoming playoffs. They signed Notre Dame for membership. Just those 3 items alone elevated the overall value of the league arguably by 10's of millions. Teams just walking out the door could have cost the ACC 100's of millions in future TV revenue and they would have been kicked out of the big boy room just like the Big East.

(05-24-2013 03:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:39 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:48 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And somehow that "fee" is far less that what a school would pay after signing a GOR. So Maryland is whining that the exit fee is ridiculous but a GOR is not. They are whining about having their movement restricted with an GOR is the ultimate in conference restriction right now.

Maryland would say that they agreed to the GOR, so any restrictions are self-imposed.

The ACC's $50 exit fee is a restriction placed on them by others. It's totally different.

I agree to an extent JunkYard and respect your opinion, and I still wonder what the difference between $20 million and $52 million is? No where do I read that MD opposed the exit fee prior to the addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh.
No lawsuit was filed by MD when raised to $20 million or the proposal to calculate the exit fee by 1.5 x the AOB (or whatever the factor).
What I have a hard time coming to grips with is that it "appears" that Loh used the ACC's exit fee and terms as leverage against the B1G in negotiating their entrance. No other team has been/was "fronted" money against future earnings in order to join as far as has been reported. No other team has gotten/going to receive a travel premium for entrance in the B1G.
I've just got a problem with Maryland "crying foul" when they used that same ball to hit a homerun.

I hear you. I'm playing devil's advocate here with Maryland. But they are definitely trying to have their cake and eat it too in all of this.

To me, this whole thing just streams the courts will "split the difference" and be done with it, one way or another. I'll be very surprised if the Terps end up being out $52 million on this. But I also think the ACC will get a fat check.

(05-25-2013 05:53 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 03:08 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 02:39 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(05-24-2013 01:48 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  And somehow that "fee" is far less that what a school would pay after signing a GOR. So Maryland is whining that the exit fee is ridiculous but a GOR is not. They are whining about having their movement restricted with an GOR is the ultimate in conference restriction right now.

Maryland would say that they agreed to the GOR, so any restrictions are self-imposed.

The ACC's $50 exit fee is a restriction placed on them by others. It's totally different.

I agree to an extent JunkYard and respect your opinion, and I still wonder what the difference between $20 million and $52 million is? No where do I read that MD opposed the exit fee prior to the addition of Syracuse and Pittsburgh.
No lawsuit was filed by MD when raised to $20 million or the proposal to calculate the exit fee by 1.5 x the AOB (or whatever the factor).
What I have a hard time coming to grips with is that it "appears" that Loh used the ACC's exit fee and terms as leverage against the B1G in negotiating their entrance. No other team has been/was "fronted" money against future earnings in order to join as far as has been reported. No other team has gotten/going to receive a travel premium for entrance in the B1G.
I've just got a problem with Maryland "crying foul" when they used that same ball to hit a homerun.

I hear you. I'm playing devil's advocate here with Maryland. But they are definitely trying to have their cake and eat it too in all of this.
To me, this whole thing just streams the courts will "split the difference" and be done with it, one way or another. I'll be very surprised if the Terps end up being out $52 million on this. But I also think the ACC will get a fat check.

Nailed it!
And really I have no problem with it. I have posted before that I don't blame Loh. He was hired to get MD out of this fiscal mess. They had other candidates. He had a plan from the beginning to obtain quick cash for the AD and has implemented it well. That they get to be apart of the CIC is compensation for leaving their roots. He has done what they hired him to do! HE WAS HIRED TO DO THIS! That is how things work! I truly believe that Maryland wishes the ACC no harm and will try to mitigate the "damage" they cause by leaving the ACC by paying close to if not the entire "exit fee" and at the minimum, leave with terms favorable to the ACC. That truly must be the reason for the arguments they are presenting.