You may be right. Personally I don't see how the argument against the poaching fees holds up at all, but I do think they are trying to pile on the MW with several fronts. It is not like the MW has a ton of money or man power to fight these things. We also don't have a ton of money. In fact the conference has basically promised a bunch of this fee money before we have received it.
Will the MW balk at that? Maybe not, but I think the PAC thought it was worth the tactic. They have the money to fight this more than we do.
My guess is the poaching fees hold up, but they will try to use that against the MW when it comes to exit fees. An average of 11mil per school is actually on the high end of exit fee given our media value already. These are separate issues, but I think it may help talk the exit fee down a bit more than if the poaching fees didn't exist.
It’s an interesting argument, re: talking the exit fees down on account of the poaching fees. Sort of feels like a double dip, but then again as you point out, separate issues.
The exit fees were agreed to years prior by all parties involved. Are they egregious? It might appear so, BUT I think a very good argument could be made as to WHY they are what they are, and we need look no further than the actions that Boise and SDSU have taken in the recent past.
(Total side note: shouldn’t Boises exit fee be higher than the others on account of them getting more money annually?)
When these fees were agreed to the MW was fighting all these external conference realignment battles and needed a way to protect ALL of its members against departures. It was probably also never thought that it would happen THIS way with 5 members all at once.
I guess maybe ask this question… would anyone think the fee is egregious if it was just Boise State leaving? As the most valuable brand I don’t think anyone would think twice that it was fair.
Again, I don’t think any of the departing teams (aside from Boise and maybe SDSU) thought this pertained to them, and if it did by some small chance it would mean they were going to a P5, and who cares at that point?
So they may still get negotiated down, but I don’t think there too much of a legal argument against them, and a pretty sound argument for them. The specific scenario where 5 teams leave wouldn’t have been a consideration to be made, and the MW can’t be liable due to it… in my non lawyer opinion.
As for the poaching fees…
The PAC2 are trying to claim that they were “taken advantage of”… all the while sitting on a monetary war chest they could use to destroy the MW. Their actions basically PROVE the case against them.
They can TRY to point to the “big scary” number as somehow being “unfair”, but I don’t see that as being a sound argument either.
unlvrebels.com
