(09-15-2013 10:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  mark my words, maryland pays the full exit fee, and probably ends up having to pay more than the exit fee

Not going to happen.

(09-16-2013 03:39 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The ACC has zero reason to settle this. They have given no indication that they will even try to settle this issue. The exit fee has risen to $60 million+ with the signing of the GOR, the addition of UofL and the agreement with ND. The exit fee is not a set amount but rather 3x the yearly operating budget. Maryland officials themselves have admitted that they may have to pay the entire amount but are trying to argue for something less. They are still going to the B1G. Their best hope is that the ACC would take their exit fee in payments over a period of time. That would enable the University of Maryland to borrow less money and perhaps begin to start receiving $ from the ACC again.

Das, Maryland is persona non gratis in the ACC.

Their relationship with other members is worse than South Carolina's in 1971 and that was bad. The ACC will do nothing to help Maryland and some schools will only do things to stick it to MD. Maryland burned bridges at the top by playing both sides at the same time, although three of those retired or relocated this summer (VT, UNC, Clemson).

The persistent rumor, talk, whatever you want to call it, was that MD directly told certain ACC Presidents (not all) that they were solid in the ACC and were not going to the B10 as late as September of 2012. Now for those that look at this like a simple business decision, this was not the culture of the ACC and I think Loh greatly misunderstood that culture as evidenced by his comments and actions.

The way the ACC has operated for 60 years is that schools with serious disagreements with other schools, always had a "mediator, confessor, etc" school with whom they could confide their position with trust and the mediator/confessor would attempt to help work things out. For those of you who have wondered why the ACC likes Wake Forest - that's the reason - that's their role.

If people are convinced you will lie to the priest, (or in this case the Deacon) who will trust you?

(09-16-2013 05:15 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 10:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  mark my words, maryland pays the full exit fee, and probably ends up having to pay more than the exit fee

Not going to happen.

Due to the difficulty collecting on a judgment in excess of what's being withheld, the only scenario I see where MD voluntarily pays above the $27-$32-$35 million being withheld is if the ACC is in possession of documents or recordings that directly implicate the B10 colluding to punish the ACC for accepting ND.

Delany should be smarter than that, but total silence would depend on the mouths of the others near to the decision makers. We have seen what Gordon Gee's mouth can produce, however, I think something that sensitive would stay hushed.

(09-16-2013 05:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Delany should be smarter than that, but total silence would depend on the mouths of the others near to the decision makers.

He is. Delany's bosses don't care about Notre Dame so much. He would have had to go to them and say, "let me go get Maryland now that the ACC has erected their $50M fence so that we can do $10 in damage to ND. That'll show 'em..."

(09-16-2013 05:41 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 05:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Delany should be smarter than that, but total silence would depend on the mouths of the others near to the decision makers.

He is. Delany's bosses don't care about Notre Dame so much. He would have had to go to them and say, "let me go get Maryland now that the ACC has erected their $50M fence so that we can do $10 in damage to ND. That'll show 'em..."

#logic

(09-16-2013 05:11 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:52 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Terry's opinion is that of someone trained in legal procedures. IMO that carries more weight than someone without such training...

Of course, the only decision involving Maryland that I'm really concerned about is coming up this Saturday. Other than that, I could care less. It's their money, not mine...

Maryland is going to whip that Mountaineer tail, Bitcruncher!

Don't bet on it, Mark. The Terps had trouble with UConn, and they lost to Towson...

The key to beating Maryland is stopping Diggs. I seriously doubt the Terps will be able to run on WVU like they did against the Huskies...

(09-16-2013 04:30 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:18 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Terry's opinion is that of someone trained in legal procedures. IMO that carries more weight than someone without such training...

Of course, the only decision involving Maryland that I'm really concerned about is coming up this Saturday. Other than that, I could care less. It's their money, not mine...

I agree that Terry's opinion carries more weight than yours or mine on legal issues. As a UofL fan, I don't like being called "dude". Other than the $27 mill. figure, what points regarding his opinion do you agree with?

The old exit fee was 20 million. The new one was pushed through, and UofL is a more than adequate replacement. The ACC isn't being harmed by Maryland's exit, since they've fully restocked the cabinet. And considering that ND has since jumped on the bandwagon, you could argue that the ACC is far better off without the Terps...

Understandable logic, but faulty because it's based on looking at the ACC as a zero-sum entity with only a fixed number of teams. That's not what conferences are so the loss of Maryland can not be plugged by Louisville. The loss of Maryland is a unique loss to the conference and represents the loss not just of a 60 year ACC partner, but a 106 year partner to North Carolina and NC State (both have been in the same league as MD since 1907). The ACC can easily make the cased that Louisville was supposed to be a 16th team, not the 15th team and disproving that is impossible. The ACC can also contend that Maryland's defection, derailed a possible move by Penn State. Remember, the ACC is not attempting to keep Maryland in the ACC, just compensate league members for an unknowable cost of losing a member and since the exit applies to FSU and UNC as well as MD, the cost of Maryland of 3x is reasonable.

Maryland had a choice when the issue of going from 1.25X to 3X came to a vote - Maryland could have noticed an exit, but they didn't and continued to say one thing in public and another in private.

Good enough for you?

BTW, I use dude or kiddo (depending on age), since me and names don't get along that well. You'll have similar problems some day...

I'm no kiddo that is for sure! Lol! Thanks for outlining your opinion.

As to the $27 million that Terry D estimates, that number is close to what the ACC will have withheld from Maryland since January of 2013. Winning the suit and collecting by the ACC is two different matters. The ACC will win, but I don't know that they can collect on what could be a judgment of $62 million plus costs because collecting means getting money out of Maryland and at best it seems that the ACC would have to attempt to attach NCAA money, Playoff money and B10 money before it comes to MD. (I don't know the details on attempting to collect out of state - someone else might)

If the ACC attempts to collect beyond the withheld money, I doubt they can attach the B10 TV money because the B10 will fight that to the end of time. The Football playoff money also goes directly to the conference. Now the NCAA monies might be attachable, might not, and might end up as no more than a garnishment type attachment.

I think $27 million is a little low as the ACC should be able to withhold some $32 million from MD by June 30, 2014, but I'm unsure about exactly what the ACC withheld in fiscal 2012/13.

Unless you're a lawyer with inside access to the case, I'm taking Terry's opinion over your's. We shall see who is right soon enough...

(09-16-2013 06:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 05:11 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:52 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:24 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  Maryland is going to whip that Mountaineer tail, Bitcruncher!

Don't bet on it, Mark. The Terps had trouble with UConn, and they lost to Towson...

The key to beating Maryland is stopping Diggs. I seriously doubt the Terps will be able to run on WVU like they did against the Huskies...

(09-16-2013 04:30 PM)Dasville Wrote:  I agree that Terry's opinion carries more weight than yours or mine on legal issues. As a UofL fan, I don't like being called "dude". Other than the $27 mill. figure, what points regarding his opinion do you agree with?

The old exit fee was 20 million. The new one was pushed through, and UofL is a more than adequate replacement. The ACC isn't being harmed by Maryland's exit, since they've fully restocked the cabinet. And considering that ND has since jumped on the bandwagon, you could argue that the ACC is far better off without the Terps...

Understandable logic, but faulty because it's based on looking at the ACC as a zero-sum entity with only a fixed number of teams. That's not what conferences are so the loss of Maryland can not be plugged by Louisville. The loss of Maryland is a unique loss to the conference and represents the loss not just of a 60 year ACC partner, but a 106 year partner to North Carolina and NC State (both have been in the same league as MD since 1907). The ACC can easily make the cased that Louisville was supposed to be a 16th team, not the 15th team and disproving that is impossible. The ACC can also contend that Maryland's defection, derailed a possible move by Penn State. Remember, the ACC is not attempting to keep Maryland in the ACC, just compensate league members for an unknowable cost of losing a member and since the exit applies to FSU and UNC as well as MD, the cost of Maryland of 3x is reasonable.

Maryland had a choice when the issue of going from 1.25X to 3X came to a vote - Maryland could have noticed an exit, but they didn't and continued to say one thing in public and another in private.

Good enough for you?

BTW, I use dude or kiddo (depending on age), since me and names don't get along that well. You'll have similar problems some day...

I'm no kiddo that is for sure! Lol! Thanks for outlining your opinion.

As to the $27 million that Terry D estimates, that number is close to what the ACC will have withheld from Maryland since January of 2013. Winning the suit and collecting by the ACC is two different matters. The ACC will win, but I don't know that they can collect on what could be a judgment of $62 million plus costs because collecting means getting money out of Maryland and at best it seems that the ACC would have to attempt to attach NCAA money, Playoff money and B10 money before it comes to MD. (I don't know the details on attempting to collect out of state - someone else might)

If the ACC attempts to collect beyond the withheld money, I doubt they can attach the B10 TV money because the B10 will fight that to the end of time. The Football playoff money also goes directly to the conference. Now the NCAA monies might be attachable, might not, and might end up as no more than a garnishment type attachment.

I think $27 million is a little low as the ACC should be able to withhold some $32 million from MD by June 30, 2014, but I'm unsure about exactly what the ACC withheld in fiscal 2012/13.

Unless you're a lawyer with inside access to the case, I'm taking Terry's opinion over your's. We shall see who is right soon enough...

Typical WV mentality.

The ACC is incredibly fortunate that UL was available to backfill for UMD, but UMD does not get credit for this under a liquidated damages clause. If the B12 had grabbed UL like they should have, we'd be stuck with UConn or worse. The identity of the available replacements is a crapshoot. Plus, UMD should not get the benefit of being the first defector. The more schools that leave, the weaker the replacements get. The first defector must pay for destabilizing the confererence.

(09-16-2013 05:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 03:39 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The ACC has zero reason to settle this. They have given no indication that they will even try to settle this issue. The exit fee has risen to $60 million+ with the signing of the GOR, the addition of UofL and the agreement with ND. The exit fee is not a set amount but rather 3x the yearly operating budget. Maryland officials themselves have admitted that they may have to pay the entire amount but are trying to argue for something less. They are still going to the B1G. Their best hope is that the ACC would take their exit fee in payments over a period of time. That would enable the University of Maryland to borrow less money and perhaps begin to start receiving $ from the ACC again.

Das, Maryland is persona non gratis in the ACC.

Their relationship with other members is worse than South Carolina's in 1971 and that was bad. The ACC will do nothing to help Maryland and some schools will only do things to stick it to MD. Maryland burned bridges at the top by playing both sides at the same time, although three of those retired or relocated this summer (VT, UNC, Clemson).

The persistent rumor, talk, whatever you want to call it, was that MD directly told certain ACC Presidents (not all) that they were solid in the ACC and were not going to the B10 as late as September of 2012. Now for those that look at this like a simple business decision, this was not the culture of the ACC and I think Loh greatly misunderstood that culture as evidenced by his comments and actions.

The way the ACC has operated for 60 years is that schools with serious disagreements with other schools, always had a "mediator, confessor, etc" school with whom they could confide their position with trust and the mediator/confessor would attempt to help work things out. For those of you who have wondered why the ACC likes Wake Forest - that's the reason - that's their role.

If people are convinced you will lie to the priest, (or in this case the Deacon) who will trust you?

Your points are excellent, but tell Cuse not to schedule them! You also had a great point regarding Penn State. Barry Alvarez said it himself.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/182573751.html

(09-16-2013 07:24 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 06:51 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 05:11 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:52 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 04:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Don't bet on it, Mark. The Terps had trouble with UConn, and they lost to Towson...

The key to beating Maryland is stopping Diggs. I seriously doubt the Terps will be able to run on WVU like they did against the Huskies...The old exit fee was 20 million. The new one was pushed through, and UofL is a more than adequate replacement. The ACC isn't being harmed by Maryland's exit, since they've fully restocked the cabinet. And considering that ND has since jumped on the bandwagon, you could argue that the ACC is far better off without the Terps...

Understandable logic, but faulty because it's based on looking at the ACC as a zero-sum entity with only a fixed number of teams. That's not what conferences are so the loss of Maryland can not be plugged by Louisville. The loss of Maryland is a unique loss to the conference and represents the loss not just of a 60 year ACC partner, but a 106 year partner to North Carolina and NC State (both have been in the same league as MD since 1907). The ACC can easily make the cased that Louisville was supposed to be a 16th team, not the 15th team and disproving that is impossible. The ACC can also contend that Maryland's defection, derailed a possible move by Penn State. Remember, the ACC is not attempting to keep Maryland in the ACC, just compensate league members for an unknowable cost of losing a member and since the exit applies to FSU and UNC as well as MD, the cost of Maryland of 3x is reasonable.

Maryland had a choice when the issue of going from 1.25X to 3X came to a vote - Maryland could have noticed an exit, but they didn't and continued to say one thing in public and another in private.

Good enough for you?

BTW, I use dude or kiddo (depending on age), since me and names don't get along that well. You'll have similar problems some day...

I'm no kiddo that is for sure! Lol! Thanks for outlining your opinion.

As to the $27 million that Terry D estimates, that number is close to what the ACC will have withheld from Maryland since January of 2013. Winning the suit and collecting by the ACC is two different matters. The ACC will win, but I don't know that they can collect on what could be a judgment of $62 million plus costs because collecting means getting money out of Maryland and at best it seems that the ACC would have to attempt to attach NCAA money, Playoff money and B10 money before it comes to MD. (I don't know the details on attempting to collect out of state - someone else might)

If the ACC attempts to collect beyond the withheld money, I doubt they can attach the B10 TV money because the B10 will fight that to the end of time. The Football playoff money also goes directly to the conference. Now the NCAA monies might be attachable, might not, and might end up as no more than a garnishment type attachment.

I think $27 million is a little low as the ACC should be able to withhold some $32 million from MD by June 30, 2014, but I'm unsure about exactly what the ACC withheld in fiscal 2012/13.

Unless you're a lawyer with inside access to the case, I'm taking Terry's opinion over your's. We shall see who is right soon enough...

Typical WV mentality.

Typical argument from someone who is unable to come up with something intelligent to say. Fall back on insults...

Let me know if you think up something that doesn't sound so childish...

(09-16-2013 09:17 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:49 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 10:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  mark my words, maryland pays the full exit fee, and probably ends up having to pay more than the exit fee

I doubt that very much. Pay more than the exit fee? Ridiculous. Most likely less than the stated exit fee since they voted against the increases and then left as soon as possible after they were implemented against their wishes.

if BSU & TCU couldnt get their way out of paying the full BE exit fee (and they both went to court trying too) then i dont see how MD can find a legal argument that they dont have to pay theirs.

BSU has a very small budget. 5 million is 6% of BSU's total endowment.

you wanna know what 6% of maryland's endowment is? coincidentally its 49.2 million.........


maryland has no argument here.......

And this is where I end my part of the conversation if you think these examples are comparable to Maryland.

(09-16-2013 03:39 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The ACC has zero reason to settle this. They have given no indication that they will even try to settle this issue. The exit fee has risen to $60 million+ with the signing of the GOR, the addition of UofL and the agreement with ND.

Be real. The fee will be the amount it was when it was known Maryland was leaving, not the amount it is a year or two later.

(09-16-2013 05:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  The way the ACC has operated for 60 years is that schools with serious disagreements with other schools, always had a "mediator, confessor, etc" school with whom they could confide their position with trust and the mediator/confessor would attempt to help work things out. For those of you who have wondered why the ACC likes Wake Forest - that's the reason - that's their role.

You seem to be reasonable and what you say makes sense in the grand scheme.

However, THAT part nearly made me vomit. Just pay Wake $5M/year on the side to settle disputes and kick them out of the conference. I really don't think their role is nearly as important as you make it sound, and regardless, that's no reason to keep a useless member around, Tobacky Road or not.

(09-16-2013 08:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 03:39 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The ACC has zero reason to settle this. They have given no indication that they will even try to settle this issue. The exit fee has risen to $60 million+ with the signing of the GOR, the addition of UofL and the agreement with ND.

Be real. The fee will be the amount it was when it was known Maryland was leaving, not the amount it is a year or two later.

I am merely saying that the exit fee has already adjusted to the rise in the yearly operating budget. I guess the amount was frozen when MD gave their "official notice" to the ACC. When was that again?

(09-15-2013 11:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 10:59 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 10:48 PM)john01992 Wrote:  mark my words, maryland pays the full exit fee, and probably ends up having to pay more than the exit fee

That would shock me. Only West Virginia has done that so far and that was when they gave basically no notice (Big 12 needed them immediately) creating a hole for everyone (7 instead of 8 conference games). My guess is we'll see about 60% of the it agreed to.

only the big east & acc have had exit fees been implemented

wvu: owed 5 mill ended up paying 20 mill
syracuse: owed 5 mill ended up paying 7.5 mill
pitt: owed 5 mill ended up paying 7.5 mill
boise state: owes 5 mill in a lawsuit with the big east over the 5 mill exit fee (they will lose)
TCU: owed 5 mill ended up paying 5 mill

the b12 has something that they called an exit fee, but its not an actual exit fee. its a percentage of revenue distribution penalty and the 4 departing schools managed to tear it to shreds paying only 40% of what they actually owed.

maryland owes 50 mill, but the acc is gonna get 52 mill from what it sounds like, and the ACC already had a legal victory which came from a MARYLAND judge. its pretty obvious maryland isnt winning this one

WVU, Syracuse, and Pitt also each violated the 27-month notice provision, which is why they paid more in their exit fees. Boise and TCU are basically just being held to their contracts.

(09-16-2013 08:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 03:39 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The ACC has zero reason to settle this. They have given no indication that they will even try to settle this issue. The exit fee has risen to $60 million+ with the signing of the GOR, the addition of UofL and the agreement with ND.

Be real. The fee will be the amount it was when it was known Maryland was leaving, not the amount it is a year or two later.

I am merely saying that the exit fee has already adjusted to the rise in the yearly operating budget. I guess the amount was frozen when MD gave their "official notice" to the ACC. When was that again?

August 15, 2013.

(09-16-2013 08:58 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 03:39 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The ACC has zero reason to settle this. They have given no indication that they will even try to settle this issue. The exit fee has risen to $60 million+ with the signing of the GOR, the addition of UofL and the agreement with ND.

Be real. The fee will be the amount it was when it was known Maryland was leaving, not the amount it is a year or two later.

I am merely saying that the exit fee has already adjusted to the rise in the yearly operating budget. I guess the amount was frozen when MD gave their "official notice" to the ACC. When was that again?

August 15, 2013.

And why did they wait until then?

(09-16-2013 09:03 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:58 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 03:39 PM)Dasville Wrote:  The ACC has zero reason to settle this. They have given no indication that they will even try to settle this issue. The exit fee has risen to $60 million+ with the signing of the GOR, the addition of UofL and the agreement with ND.

Be real. The fee will be the amount it was when it was known Maryland was leaving, not the amount it is a year or two later.

I am merely saying that the exit fee has already adjusted to the rise in the yearly operating budget. I guess the amount was frozen when MD gave their "official notice" to the ACC. When was that again?

August 15, 2013.

And why did they wait until then?

It's the date required to give notice in the ACC bylaws. I have no idea why exactly they waited until the last minute.

EDIT: Just got this reply back from Alex Prewitt, who covers Maryland for the Washington Post:

Sent on June 26. One-page letter.

So it wasn't on August 15. I stand corrected.

(09-16-2013 09:04 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 09:03 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:58 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:54 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 08:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Be real. The fee will be the amount it was when it was known Maryland was leaving, not the amount it is a year or two later.

I am merely saying that the exit fee has already adjusted to the rise in the yearly operating budget. I guess the amount was frozen when MD gave their "official notice" to the ACC. When was that again?

August 15, 2013.

And why did they wait until then?

It's the date required to give notice in the ACC bylaws. I have no idea why exactly they waited until the last minute.

Correct! Again a source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/terr...mediately/



So why are some by-laws valid and others are not? Why are they using ACC by-laws to support portions of their case and then arguing that other ACC by-laws are not valid?

If MD doesn't win then they owe $52+ million to the ACC. If MD wins, they effectively destroy ALL conference constitutions. They would in fact be rendering all the GOR's null and void! Wonder how that will turn out?