(11-03-2013 06:06 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Maryland will pay $20 million plus their court costs when this is over. They have precedents on their side in cases involving leaving members who have not voted for additional exit fees. Florida State could have as well, but has passed the time limitations established by precedent. All remaining ACC members would now have to pay 52 million because they did vote to accept it and because it has been more than a year since they did so. A year has been the rough equivalent of reasonable time for a program to leave when it did not accept new stipulations. Maryland will qualify but will be bound to the old exit fee of 20 million.

Maryland will end up paying AT LEAST $52M plus court costs in North Carolina and in Maryland.

I like you XLance but you will be dead wrong on this one. Emoticons or not.

The ACC has the best "intellectual property" legal team in the Southeast. The same team faced a bank of federal lawyers and got that *******John Edwards out of his campaign finance troubles when everybody knew he was guilty as he was slimy. And to top it off, the same firm wrote the contract for the ACC.
The folks in Greensboro are very confident about the amount.

Being confident in one's position is a requirement of a legal team up until the decision is rendered. Maryland is not going to waltz on this but neither will they pay more than they agreed to pay (with the exception of their cost to litigate). And when the judgment is in and the Terps are out for 20 million plus expenses it will not mean what many in the Big 10 think, open season on ACC teams, because the 52 million will be ensconced for the remaining members.

(11-03-2013 04:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Maryland will pay $20 million plus their court costs when this is over. They have precedents on their side in cases involving leaving members who have not voted for additional exit fees. Florida State could have as well, but has passed the time limitations established by precedent. All remaining ACC members would now have to pay 52 million because they did vote to accept it and because it has been more than a year since they did so. A year has been the rough equivalent of reasonable time for a program to leave when it did not accept new stipulations. Maryland will qualify but will be bound to the old exit fee of 20 million.

Maryland will end up paying AT LEAST $52M plus court costs in North Carolina and in Maryland.

I like you XLance but you will be dead wrong on this one. Emoticons or not.

When you join an organization and it has rules and bylaws, you agree to abide by the rules and bylaws. It does not matter at all if you actually voted for the particular rule or bylaw. The fact that Maryland voted against going from 1.25X to 3 X is meaningless and there is no precedent on Maryland side - none. Just because a group of people agreed to allow someone "out" of a contract does not make that a legal precedent.

Maryland has NO LEGAL PRECEDENTS ON IT'S SIDE. That's why the way they have handled it is pretty dumb. When Loh stated that Maryland would not pay the ACC's agreed to and voted upon amount of 3 X he opened Maryland up to the current garnishment and withholding of all their money from the ACC - dumb, dumb, dumb. He had to make that statement to cover his butt with his board, that statement will probably end up costing him his job.

Anyway. The fact that Maryland voted against the raise to 3 X means nothing. The conference bylaws are clear about the number of votes needed to make policy and amend rules.

We could not have a society if those that were outvoted could always take their toys and go home. Business boards have millions of votes that are legally binding on the losers of the vote. The ACC is no different.

Maryland's official notice came on June 18th 2013 or there-about. The only payment is based on the date they leave the conference which is June 20, 2014. The conference's fiscal year runs from June to June (a little different than those that run January 1 to December 31 or July 1 to June 30. The current estimated revenue for the end of this fiscal year is about $18.5 - $19.5 million. 3 X means UM will owe $55.5 to 58.5 million or there-about.

The ACC withheld $12 million from them for the last fiscal year, they will withhold all $18.5-$19.5 million for this fiscal year, meaning the ACC will be holding $30.5 to 31.5 million from Maryland and then Maryland will face a judgment for the difference - say $25 - $28 million.

Now, the question would become how would the ACC collect the judgment if UM refuses to pay the judgment. This is were the devil really is in the details and most scholars on the subject say the Maryland legislature would have to pass a bill in order to pay this judgment - politically unlikely.

The ACC has several options at that point. They could go after the B10, the NCAA, garnish Maryland's money anytime they play an ACC school, hold it for future litigation, or do nothing and let Maryland go., exact something out of the B10, etc.

It would be interesting to know more about the time precedent you cite, even though I fail to see how it applies to a contract in the State of NC. Can you provide a link or a citation to it? You see if Maryland wanted to avoid the higher fee, they could have noticed an exit from the ACC when the vote to raise the fee was taken, and they did not. In fact they continued to act as if they were a member in good standing of the ACC for several months.

lumber, many a decision in the courts have no legal precedent until the judge makes one.

(11-03-2013 05:37 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 05:28 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:35 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Maryland didn't "officially" notify the ACC they were leaving until ~10 months after the new fee was voted in..

Maryland didn't have anywhere to go. It's pretty important to have a solid landing spot before leaving or Maryland loses all its negotiating leverage. Unless the court thinks it's unreasonable for a large public institution to be relatively prudent and deliberate when making such a move, then I doubt the minimal passage of time would be an issue. This isn't like switching Internet providers.

Maryland signed the B1G non disclosure agreement before the ACC raised the fee. They also "announced" their plan to join the B1G shortly after the ACC voted in the new exit fee. They just didn't officially notify the ACC for several months. Maryland already had a place to go. They were just negotiating travel expenses, etc.

Why would MD vote "for" the membership conditions of ND into the ACC? Seems like they would have had a stronger hand in their exit fee argument if they voted "against" twice. They could have voted against ND's entrance deal (not a full member) and also voted against the exit fee that was raised because of ND's entrance to the conference?
Remember, there were two different votes.

It's called double dealing or hedging your bets. Remember, Loh thinks he's a legal genius and that he could dance away from anything the ACC did - Maryland acted like a good faith member of the ACC until they had a verbal deal with the B10. I doubt he even read the ACC bylaws or thought they had any effect on Maryland at all.

Also remember, had Loh not opened his big mouth about not paying the ACC, the ACC would have had no legitimate reason to garnish and take Maryland's ACC revenues until Maryland noticed an exit and gave some signal they would not pay. Loh might be a theoretical legal genius, but from a practical standpoint - he's a moron.

(11-03-2013 06:14 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Maryland will pay $20 million plus their court costs when this is over. They have precedents on their side in cases involving leaving members who have not voted for additional exit fees. Florida State could have as well, but has passed the time limitations established by precedent. All remaining ACC members would now have to pay 52 million because they did vote to accept it and because it has been more than a year since they did so. A year has been the rough equivalent of reasonable time for a program to leave when it did not accept new stipulations. Maryland will qualify but will be bound to the old exit fee of 20 million.

Maryland will end up paying AT LEAST $52M plus court costs in North Carolina and in Maryland.

I like you XLance but you will be dead wrong on this one. Emoticons or not.

When you join an organization and it has rules and bylaws, you agree to abide by the rules and bylaws. It does not matter at all if you actually voted for the particular rule or bylaw. The fact that Maryland voted against going from 1.25X to 3 X is meaningless and there is no precedent on Maryland side - none. Just because a group of people agreed to allow someone "out" of a contract does not make that a legal precedent.

Maryland has NO LEGAL PRECEDENTS ON IT'S SIDE. That's why the way they have handled it is pretty dumb. When Loh stated that Maryland would not pay the ACC's agreed to and voted upon amount of 3 X he opened Maryland up to the current garnishment and withholding of all their money from the ACC - dumb, dumb, dumb. He had to make that statement to cover his butt with his board, that statement will probably end up costing him his job.

Anyway. The fact that Maryland voted against the raise to 3 X means nothing. The conference bylaws are clear about the number of votes needed to make policy and amend rules.

We could not have a society if those that were outvoted could always take their toys and go home. Business boards have millions of votes that are legally binding on the losers of the vote. The ACC is no different.

Maryland's official notice came on June 18th 2013 or there-about. The only payment is based on the date they leave the conference which is June 20, 2014. The conference's fiscal year runs from June to June (a little different than those that run January 1 to December 31 or July 1 to June 30. The current estimated revenue for the end of this fiscal year is about $18.5 - $19.5 million. 3 X means UM will owe $55.5 to 58.5 million or there-about.

The ACC withheld $12 million from them for the last fiscal year, they will withhold all $18.5-$19.5 million for this fiscal year, meaning the ACC will be holding $30.5 to 31.5 million from Maryland and then Maryland will face a judgment for the difference - say $25 - $28 million.

Now, the question would become how would the ACC collect the judgment if UM refuses to pay the judgment. This is were the devil really is in the details and most scholars on the subject say the Maryland legislature would have to pass a bill in order to pay this judgment - politically unlikely.

The ACC has several options at that point. They could go after the B10, the NCAA, garnish Maryland's money anytime they play an ACC school, hold it for future litigation, or do nothing and let Maryland go., exact something out of the B10, etc.

It would be interesting to know more about the time precedent you cite, even though I fail to see how it applies to a contract in the State of NC. Can you provide a link or a citation to it? You see if Maryland wanted to avoid the higher fee, they could have noticed an exit from the ACC when the vote to raise the fee was taken, and they did not. In fact they continued to act as if they were a member in good standing of the ACC for several months.

They were in articles concurrent with Maryland's withdrawal almost a year ago. I would think that some of those in the threads of this board could be researched. I've got a good memory for these things even though I'm getting up in age. What I've stated is so. But it really doesn't matter because the courts will rule, eventually, and then we will see if the stated precedents are effectual or not. I wasn't trying to start an ACC riot here, just merely stating that according to what has been ruled upon in the past that Maryland will likely get out for 20 million. If I'm wrong or right when the ruling comes down can be revisited later, or not. The fact that the case is coming back to North Carolina doesn't hurt the ACC, but it doesn't help them that much either. The courts will rule on the law and its past applications whether it is in Rhode Island or North Carolina.

(11-03-2013 06:20 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  lumber, many a decision in the courts have no legal precedent until the judge makes one.

Bit - you know full well a judge is not going to back members of a corporation or group being able to move "one vote back" when there is a vote and they don't agree. That would upend the very fabric of corporate law.

If Maryland did not like the 3 X, they had a choice at the time of the vote - they could have noticed an exit right then and not been tied to the 3 X. Had they any real brains, they could have noticed an exit date several years in the future, locking the 1.25 X into place for them, and allowing them time to negotiate or change opinion in the ACC.

Instead, the continued to attend the meeting, attend the next meetings, and pretended to be a member in good standing. No judge is going overturn over a century of case and common law to help Maryland out of a dumb course of action.

(11-03-2013 03:37 PM)Dasville Wrote:  This is in regards to Rutgers.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp also ruled that the case should be transferred to the conference’s home state of Rhode Island.

Found this posted on the AAC board but it looks like these findings could also be applied to the Maryland ACC lawsuit.


Here is the link:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11...sland.html

This really is no big deal. Contracts with choice of jurisdiction clauses are usually enforced. The same is true for mandatory arbitration clauses. However, punitive liquidated damages provisions are usually stricken, and this ultimate issue has not be addressed by this riuling. No attorney should be surprised by this. Rutgers thinking differently is the result of home state politicos being too big for their britches. The same was true for the Maryland lawsuit filed in Maryland, except there may be a legitimate collection against a state entity argument preserved by that lawsuit that was stayed.

What is interesting is now an arbitrator will now decide the case. Who will the arbitrator be? Arbitrators tend to split things somewhere between the two sides' positions, which in a punitive liquidated damages case is exactly what Rutgers would want.

(11-03-2013 06:40 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 03:37 PM)Dasville Wrote:  This is in regards to Rutgers.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp also ruled that the case should be transferred to the conference’s home state of Rhode Island.

Found this posted on the AAC board but it looks like these findings could also be applied to the Maryland ACC lawsuit.


Here is the link:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11...sland.html

This really is no big deal. Contracts with choice of jurisdiction clauses are usually enforced. The same is true for mandatory arbitration clauses. However, punitive liquidated damages provisions are usually stricken, and this ultimate issue has not be addressed by this riuling. No attorney should be surprised by this. Rutgers thinking differently is the result of home state politicos being too big for their britches. The same was true for the Maryland lawsuit filed in Maryland, except there may be a legitimate collection against a state entity argument preserved by that lawsuit that was stayed.

What is interesting is now an arbitrator will now decide the case. Who will the arbitrator be? Arbitrators tend to split things somewhere between the two sides' positions, which in a punitive liquidated damages case is exactly what Rutgers would want.

Here is the Big Easts/AAC's bylaws under which the Rutgers litigation is moving: http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets...Bylaws.pdf

(11-03-2013 06:20 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  lumber, many a decision in the courts have no legal precedent until the judge makes one.

UofL is paying 100% of the agreed upon Big East exit fee and not filing a lawsuit.
Is this a precedent?

(11-03-2013 06:57 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 06:40 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 03:37 PM)Dasville Wrote:  This is in regards to Rutgers.

U.S. District Judge Michael Shipp also ruled that the case should be transferred to the conference’s home state of Rhode Island.

Found this posted on the AAC board but it looks like these findings could also be applied to the Maryland ACC lawsuit.


Here is the link:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11...sland.html

This really is no big deal. Contracts with choice of jurisdiction clauses are usually enforced. The same is true for mandatory arbitration clauses. However, punitive liquidated damages provisions are usually stricken, and this ultimate issue has not be addressed by this riuling. No attorney should be surprised by this. Rutgers thinking differently is the result of home state politicos being too big for their britches. The same was true for the Maryland lawsuit filed in Maryland, except there may be a legitimate collection against a state entity argument preserved by that lawsuit that was stayed.

What is interesting is now an arbitrator will now decide the case. Who will the arbitrator be? Arbitrators tend to split things somewhere between the two sides' positions, which in a punitive liquidated damages case is exactly what Rutgers would want.

Here is the Big Easts/AAC's bylaws under which the Rutgers litigation is moving: http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets...Bylaws.pdf

The exit fee had the standard language proclaiming the liquidated damages are reasonable and are not a penalty, which is in almost all contracts whether such liquidated damages are later found to be a penalty or not. I skimmed it quick but did not see a clause regarding arbitration or jurisdiction, so that lends me to believe there is another contract out there that is coming into play, such as the media contract or the Articles of Incorporation itself.

What is interesting was the 2/3 vote needed to dissolve the conference.

Thanks for posting the link.

(11-03-2013 06:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 06:20 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  lumber, many a decision in the courts have no legal precedent until the judge makes one.

Bit - you know full well a judge is not going to back members of a corporation or group being able to move "one vote back" when there is a vote and they don't agree. That would upend the very fabric of corporate law.

If Maryland did not like the 3 X, they had a choice at the time of the vote - they could have noticed an exit right then and not been tied to the 3 X. Had they any real brains, they could have noticed an exit date several years in the future, locking the 1.25 X into place for them, and allowing them time to negotiate or change opinion in the ACC.

Instead, the continued to attend the meeting, attend the next meetings, and pretended to be a member in good standing. No judge is going overturn over a century of case and common law to help Maryland out of a dumb course of action.

The only thing I know for sure is that we're going to have to wait for a decision. Other than that, I know very little, and neither does anyone else - not even the attorneys who are so confident in their position.

Now I realize that isn't what you want to hear. You want to hear something that will back your thinking on the matter. But the only person who can decide that is sitting on the bench, and they have yet to rule on the matter.

But I've learned that whenever we think we know how things will shake out, we often get surprised. We could be again. It has yet to be determined.

(11-03-2013 07:24 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 06:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 06:20 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  lumber, many a decision in the courts have no legal precedent until the judge makes one.

Bit - you know full well a judge is not going to back members of a corporation or group being able to move "one vote back" when there is a vote and they don't agree. That would upend the very fabric of corporate law.

If Maryland did not like the 3 X, they had a choice at the time of the vote - they could have noticed an exit right then and not been tied to the 3 X. Had they any real brains, they could have noticed an exit date several years in the future, locking the 1.25 X into place for them, and allowing them time to negotiate or change opinion in the ACC.

Instead, the continued to attend the meeting, attend the next meetings, and pretended to be a member in good standing. No judge is going overturn over a century of case and common law to help Maryland out of a dumb course of action.

The only thing I know for sure is that we're going to have to wait for a decision. Other than that, I know very little, and neither does anyone else - not even the attorneys who are so confident in their position.

Now I realize that isn't what you want to hear. You want to hear something that will back your thinking on the matter. But the only person who can decide that is sitting on the bench, and they have yet to rule on the matter.

But I've learned that whenever we think we know how things will shake out, we often get surprised. We could be again. It has yet to be determined.

Knowing several of the judges on the case, I will be stunned to for any surprise to befall the ACC. Having said that, you are quite correct, until you get the ruling in hand and all the appeals are exhausted, it's never over.

Let's be honest, there is no reason why they wouldn't be binding.

(11-03-2013 07:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 06:20 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  lumber, many a decision in the courts have no legal precedent until the judge makes one.

UofL is paying 100% of the agreed upon Big East exit fee and not filing a lawsuit.
Is this a precedent?

Rutgers and Maryland are two peas in a pod aren't they?

(11-03-2013 07:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 07:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 06:20 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  lumber, many a decision in the courts have no legal precedent until the judge makes one.

UofL is paying 100% of the agreed upon Big East exit fee and not filing a lawsuit.
Is this a precedent?

Rutgers and Maryland are two peas in a pod aren't they?

Rutgers may be a pea in the pod, but Maryland is a turd in the septic tank.

Loh just didn't have to do it the way he did it - he created very bad blood instead of disappointment. He should have never given the league a legal reason to keep UM's money. It was his mouth that did it.

(11-03-2013 07:55 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 07:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 07:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 06:20 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  lumber, many a decision in the courts have no legal precedent until the judge makes one.

UofL is paying 100% of the agreed upon Big East exit fee and not filing a lawsuit.
Is this a precedent?

Rutgers and Maryland are two peas in a pod aren't they?

Rutgers may be a pea in the pod, but Maryland is a turd in the septic tank.

Loh just didn't have to do it the way he did it - he created very bad blood instead of disappointment. He should have never given the league a legal reason to keep UM's money. It was his mouth that did it.

(11-03-2013 07:44 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 07:20 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 06:20 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  lumber, many a decision in the courts have no legal precedent until the judge makes one.

UofL is paying 100% of the agreed upon Big East exit fee and not filing a lawsuit.
Is this a precedent?

Rutgers and Maryland are two peas in a pod aren't they?

Part of Rutgers lawsuit is about our portion of the exit fees we were owed from Cuse, WVU, ND, Pitt and TCU leaving. Ultimately what we're looking for I think is to get what's rightfully ours off of the $10 million we owe. We're essentially arguing the Big East/AAC did not give us something we were clearly owed as we were members in good standing when those schools announced they were officially leaving. So we're not giving them the $10 million in exit fees as a response. Ultimately whatever we were owed by the departing schools will come off that $10 million and that's what Rutgers will pay.

Loh's argument is that the new exit fee would prevent teams from leaving the conference and also prevent teams from joining the conference. Well, Maryland is leaving the ACC and joining the B1G despite the exit fee and both ND and UofL have joined the ACC since the new exit fee was enacted.


Then there is this:

(I have bolded some interesting points in the article)

http://www.thesentinel.com/pgs/Maryland-...-leave-ACC


excerpt:

Quote:Published on: Tuesday, November 20, 2012

By David Gutman, Capital News Service

COLLEGE PARK — The deal the Big Ten conference offered the University of Maryland to leave the Atlantic Coast Conference is so lucrative that Maryland will pay an unprecedented $50 million exit fee if it is forced to, a university spokesman said Tuesday.

When Notre Dame joined the ACC in September, conference presidents voted 10-2 to raise ACC exit fees to three times the conference’s total operating budget — about $50 million this year. Maryland is expected to try to reduce the fee through negotiations with the conference.

“It’s possible we pay,” Brian S. Ullmann, Maryland’s assistant vice president for communications, said of the exit fee. “We took that into account and we were still far, far ahead.”

Last year, Big Ten members each received $24 million from the conference, except for first-year member Nebraska. Maryland received about $17 million from the ACC last year.



The Big Ten currently has 12 members, but Rutgers announced Tuesday that it is also planning to join Maryland in the Big Ten. If the Big Ten had 14 members last year, the payout per school would have been about $19 million.

The financial outlook the Big Ten prepared for Maryland, however, showed a much bigger financial gain.

“We would not be doing this if there was only a $2 million gain,” Ullmann said. “This was not done without analysis.”

Ullmann declined to share the financial projections from the Big Ten.



“Believe me, my job would be much easier if I could show you the numbers,” he said.

Sports Illustrated, citing numbers obtained from Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany, reported that Maryland will make an additional $100 million by 2020 by joining the Big Ten. Big Ten officials did not return phone calls seeking comment.

The Big Ten will renegotiate its television contract in 2017 and is expected to get a substantial increase in revenues.

If Maryland is forced to pay the full $50 million exit fee, it would take a substantial bite out of revenue gained by the university from the move. But legal experts said that number may fall in negotiations between the university and the ACC.



The dispute is unlikely to end in a courtroom, said Michael McCann, director of the Sports Law Institute at Vermont Law School.

“Even if there are lawsuits filed, these (types of cases) don’t go to trial,” McCann said. “Ultimately this will be decided by Maryland and the conference, not the judge and jury.”

Maryland and Florida State were the only ACC schools to vote against raising the exit fee. At the time, Maryland president Wallace Loh, a lawyer, argued that the $50 million exit fee was so exorbitant that it constituted an “exit penalty” that went far beyond the actual financial damage caused by a school’s exit from the conference.

“You talk about damages, not penalties, and it has to be a reasonable estimate. That’s the law. We live in a free economy. We want people to move freely in and out of relationships. That’s the philosophical principle. What constitutes reasonable? That’s for a court to decide,” Loh told the Washington Post in September, adding that Maryland had no plans to leave the ACC.

Ullmann said Tuesday that the idea of joining the Big Ten was first discussed four weeks ago, in October.

The distinction between a reasonable exit fee and an exorbitant exit penalty will be important in determining how much Maryland is legally obligated to pay, legal experts said.

“If punitive damages don’t bear enough of a relationship to actual damages that are caused, they’re in violation of due process of law under either the 5th or the 14th Amendment,” said William S. Dodge, a professor and associate dean at the University of California, Hastings College of Law.

But determining how much financial damage Maryland’s exit will cause the ACC will be difficult, said Brian Porto, Vermont Law School professor and the author of “The Supreme Court and the NCAA.”

“Is that fee fair or reasonable? The answer to that would come from taking a hard look at the costs that Maryland’s departure would cause to the ACC. It’s going to upset the scheduling. Certainly in basketball it would reduce the marquee value of the ACC a bit. In football it would require the ACC to substitute someone for Maryland, and if the substitute is someone who has less of a marquee value obviously there are going to be costs to the ACC,” Porto said.

McCann said he thinks Maryland will have a tough time backing out of the exit fee agreement.

“I think the members are sophisticated business actors and they agreed to the set terms and they were known before agreeing to them. This isn’t like a fraud case where the consumer finds out the terms after the fact,” he said.

I have no idea where you get your logic on this. If doesn't matter if they voted for the new fee - totally irrelevant! Members abide by the by laws regardless of whether the voted for them. I cannot imagine a more legally flimsy defense. If what you say is true, then the logical conclusion is each member does whatever the hell they want as long as it's consistent with their votes. Am I missing something???

(11-03-2013 06:22 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 06:14 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:31 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 04:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Maryland will pay $20 million plus their court costs when this is over. They have precedents on their side in cases involving leaving members who have not voted for additional exit fees. Florida State could have as well, but has passed the time limitations established by precedent. All remaining ACC members would now have to pay 52 million because they did vote to accept it and because it has been more than a year since they did so. A year has been the rough equivalent of reasonable time for a program to leave when it did not accept new stipulations. Maryland will qualify but will be bound to the old exit fee of 20 million.

Maryland will end up paying AT LEAST $52M plus court costs in North Carolina and in Maryland.

I like you XLance but you will be dead wrong on this one. Emoticons or not.

When you join an organization and it has rules and bylaws, you agree to abide by the rules and bylaws. It does not matter at all if you actually voted for the particular rule or bylaw. The fact that Maryland voted against going from 1.25X to 3 X is meaningless and there is no precedent on Maryland side - none. Just because a group of people agreed to allow someone "out" of a contract does not make that a legal precedent.

Maryland has NO LEGAL PRECEDENTS ON IT'S SIDE. That's why the way they have handled it is pretty dumb. When Loh stated that Maryland would not pay the ACC's agreed to and voted upon amount of 3 X he opened Maryland up to the current garnishment and withholding of all their money from the ACC - dumb, dumb, dumb. He had to make that statement to cover his butt with his board, that statement will probably end up costing him his job.

Anyway. The fact that Maryland voted against the raise to 3 X means nothing. The conference bylaws are clear about the number of votes needed to make policy and amend rules.

We could not have a society if those that were outvoted could always take their toys and go home. Business boards have millions of votes that are legally binding on the losers of the vote. The ACC is no different.

Maryland's official notice came on June 18th 2013 or there-about. The only payment is based on the date they leave the conference which is June 20, 2014. The conference's fiscal year runs from June to June (a little different than those that run January 1 to December 31 or July 1 to June 30. The current estimated revenue for the end of this fiscal year is about $18.5 - $19.5 million. 3 X means UM will owe $55.5 to 58.5 million or there-about.

The ACC withheld $12 million from them for the last fiscal year, they will withhold all $18.5-$19.5 million for this fiscal year, meaning the ACC will be holding $30.5 to 31.5 million from Maryland and then Maryland will face a judgment for the difference - say $25 - $28 million.

Now, the question would become how would the ACC collect the judgment if UM refuses to pay the judgment. This is were the devil really is in the details and most scholars on the subject say the Maryland legislature would have to pass a bill in order to pay this judgment - politically unlikely.

The ACC has several options at that point. They could go after the B10, the NCAA, garnish Maryland's money anytime they play an ACC school, hold it for future litigation, or do nothing and let Maryland go., exact something out of the B10, etc.

It would be interesting to know more about the time precedent you cite, even though I fail to see how it applies to a contract in the State of NC. Can you provide a link or a citation to it? You see if Maryland wanted to avoid the higher fee, they could have noticed an exit from the ACC when the vote to raise the fee was taken, and they did not. In fact they continued to act as if they were a member in good standing of the ACC for several months.

They were in articles concurrent with Maryland's withdrawal almost a year ago. I would think that some of those in the threads of this board could be researched. I've got a good memory for these things even though I'm getting up in age. What I've stated is so. But it really doesn't matter because the courts will rule, eventually, and then we will see if the stated precedents are effectual or not. I wasn't trying to start an ACC riot here, just merely stating that according to what has been ruled upon in the past that Maryland will likely get out for 20 million. If I'm wrong or right when the ruling comes down can be revisited later, or not. The fact that the case is coming back to North Carolina doesn't hurt the ACC, but it doesn't help them that much either. The courts will rule on the law and its past applications whether it is in Rhode Island or North Carolina.

(11-03-2013 06:25 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-03-2013 06:20 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  lumber, many a decision in the courts have no legal precedent until the judge makes one.

Bit - you know full well a judge is not going to back members of a corporation or group being able to move "one vote back" when there is a vote and they don't agree. That would upend the very fabric of corporate law.

If Maryland did not like the 3 X, they had a choice at the time of the vote - they could have noticed an exit right then and not been tied to the 3 X. Had they any real brains, they could have noticed an exit date several years in the future, locking the 1.25 X into place for them, and allowing them time to negotiate or change opinion in the ACC.

Instead, the continued to attend the meeting, attend the next meetings, and pretended to be a member in good standing. No judge is going overturn over a century of case and common law to help Maryland out of a dumb course of action.

You mean like this from May of 2012:

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketba...unresolved

Quote: There remains a desire among some member schools to leave. Multiple sources with direct knowledge of their situations told ESPN.com that Louisville athletic director Tom Jurich told the Big East board of directors that the Cardinals want to be in the Big 12 or the ACC, opting for transparency by making members aware of his school's true intentions.

No invitation has arrived as of yet and the only likely one would be from the Big 12 if new commissioner Bob Bowlsby sees the need to recommend to his board that an expansion to 12 teams is in the league's interest. Last year, Louisville made a strong push to get into the Big 12 over West Virginia but was rebuffed in the 11th hour.

We had no place to go but still gave notice.