https://twitter.com/heralddispatch/statu...89856?s=21

https://twitter.com/granttraylor/status/...07750?s=12

Awesome! The other two to follow Id imagine.

Interesting point in the filing. Marshall signed their new member agreement in 2003. Nothing in that document binds Marshall to arbitration. ODU won’t enjoy that loophole.

CUSA just needs to move on.

(02-22-2022 05:57 PM)banker Wrote:  Interesting point in the filing. Marshall signed their new member agreement in 2003. Nothing in that document binds Marshall to arbitration. ODU won’t enjoy that loophole.

CUSA just needs to move on.

Well if Marshall didn't sign anything from 2003 on, we haven't signed anything from 1995 on.

Where are all of the experts who said that any lawsuits would have to go though Texas courts, Marshall filed in Cabell County WV. Nope, its never happened like that. I predict CUSA was never going to file suit of any kind. Basically because they know they can't win. And well ANY conferences by-laws aren't really that enforceable.

We've seen many schools skirt around all conferences by-laws.

I demand an apology from all of you who've crapped all over us, slander us and say we've needed to stick to these bylaws when we haven't signed any since 2003.

This could have all been avoided if Conference USA did the right thing and just communicated with us, but they chose this path.

clt recommends the UNC Cheat attorneys for marshal. They committed the largest academic fraud in NCAA with no penalties

(02-22-2022 06:20 PM)ghostofclt! Wrote:  clt recommends the UNC Cheat attorneys for marshal. They committed the largest academic fraud in NCAA with no penalties

Lol. Yes, they are the real crooks here.

Honestly, I hope all parties involved can form an amicable middle ground, we can pay all necessarily fees, and everybody move on.

(02-22-2022 06:20 PM)rileylives Wrote:  This could have all been avoided if Conference USA did the right thing and just communicated with us, but they chose this path.

I can think of another way it could have been avoided.

(02-22-2022 05:57 PM)banker Wrote:  Interesting point in the filing. Marshall signed their new member agreement in 2003. Nothing in that document binds Marshall to arbitration. ODU won’t enjoy that loophole.

CUSA just needs to move on.

They are claiming that *only* the 2003 bylaws bind them, based on when they signed.

Most corporate law rulings say that if you agree to the bylaws of corporation, you agree to subsequent valid changes to them. I dont think I have ever heard the defense of 'that wasnt there when I signed the entry agreement'.

CUSA is actually an entity -- with bylaws and all the rest of the corporate formalities. Schools are the administrators of the corporation -- that is they are the 'stockholders' and 'board of directors' all rolled into one.

You never have the occurrence of one set of bylaws applying to one member, and one set applying to another. But it will be interesting, to say the least, to see that challenge. Kudos for originality.

Further, if they ever participated in a vote to change the bylaws (and Marshall, as well as everyone else has) their stance is weakened even further.

(02-22-2022 05:57 PM)banker Wrote:  Interesting point in the filing. Marshall signed their new member agreement in 2003. Nothing in that document binds Marshall to arbitration. ODU won’t enjoy that loophole.

CUSA just needs to move on.

I'm no lawyer and admittedly clueless on most things law related but this seems analogous to States that joined the United States stating they dont have to follow any Amendments to the US Constitution passed after they joined because it wasn't in the Constitution when they joined.

(02-22-2022 06:23 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 06:20 PM)rileylives Wrote:  This could have all been avoided if Conference USA did the right thing and just communicated with us, but they chose this path.

I can think of another way it could have been avoided.

I can think of two.

1) the 3 simply exit per the agreement.
2) the 3 actually offer enough at the outset to pique the interest of CUSA.

But, the 3 chose this path as well, which seemingly is overlooked in the above.

So, by-laws or changes within a conference does not apply to member institutions that predate a change? That doesn't seem right.

I know that there are times when certain rules change, existing rules can be grandfathered.

Are we to assume that Marshall was grandfathered to 2003 conference laws and bylaws? That seems weird. Just a question.

This seems like a big HOA fiasco.

I am on record advocating for CUSA to approach this like a businessman would, negotiate the best monetary deal possible and then wave adios to the SB3. It might be too late for now, but if not, then I say do it.

That said, have a question. Why would Marshall not want to settle this in arbitration? That is not mediation where the parties have to agree, in this case the arbiter decides the matter, has absolute authority. If Marshall is convinced they are right, law is on their side, I would think they would jump at the chance for arbitration. Surely the arbiter will side with Marshall...no?

(02-22-2022 06:27 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 05:57 PM)banker Wrote:  Interesting point in the filing. Marshall signed their new member agreement in 2003. Nothing in that document binds Marshall to arbitration. ODU won’t enjoy that loophole.

CUSA just needs to move on.

I'm no lawyer and admittedly clueless on most things law related but this seems analogous to States that joined the United States stating they dont have to follow any Amendments to the US Constitution passed after they joined because it wasn't in the Constitution when they joined.

Pretty much on point.

(02-22-2022 06:29 PM)Tech80 Wrote:  I am on record advocating for CUSA to approach this like a businessman would, negotiate the best monetary deal possible and then wave adios to the SB3. It might be too late for now, but if not, then I say do it.

That said, have a question. Why would Marshall not want to settle this in arbitration? That is not mediation where the parties have to agree, in this case the arbiter decides the matter, has absolute authority. If Marshall is convinced they are right, law is on their side, I would think they would jump at the chance for arbitration. Surely the arbiter will side with Marshall...no?

Well, I can think of a reason or two why they dont want to have arbitration.

(02-22-2022 06:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 06:23 PM)inutech Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 06:20 PM)rileylives Wrote:  This could have all been avoided if Conference USA did the right thing and just communicated with us, but they chose this path.

I can think of another way it could have been avoided.

I can think of two.

1) the 3 simply exit per the agreement.
2) the 3 actually offer enough at the outset to pique the interest of CUSA.

But, the 3 chose this path as well, which seemingly is overlooked in the above.

Excuse me sir, this path would never have taken place if it wasn't for the AAC starting this chain, which Rice is a part of.

The only difference between us is you are staring down a 10 million entry fee and we are not. You are also blocked from entering with no available spots, while we are not.

Despite what you think, you would be doing the exact same thing in our shoes if the AAC had a spot for you.

(02-22-2022 06:29 PM)johndavidblue Wrote:  This seems like a big HOA fiasco.

Nice.

(02-22-2022 06:27 PM)WKUApollo Wrote:  

(02-22-2022 05:57 PM)banker Wrote:  Interesting point in the filing. Marshall signed their new member agreement in 2003. Nothing in that document binds Marshall to arbitration. ODU won’t enjoy that loophole.

CUSA just needs to move on.

I'm no lawyer and admittedly clueless on most things law related but this seems analogous to States that joined the United States stating they dont have to follow any Amendments to the US Constitution passed after they joined because it wasn't in the Constitution when they joined.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I know signatures are important in any contract dispute.