Unlv & Air Force in contact w/AAC
- By reagan21
- Rebel Football
- 727 Replies
It's highly contradictory.
1) It is strategic, in a way. The payment was due 30 days after a school left. They had to bring it now. That's not the strategy. The strategy is to get the MWC to take less than what they are owed under the contract
2) If money damages are being sought, then I would agree you would rather be on the party suing than the party being sued. This is not that type of lawsuit. It is a lawsuit asking a judge to say poaching fees are unenforceable. In this instance, it is probably better to be the MWC.
3) "It also has to be emphasized that the Pac-12 signed the scheduling agreement with the MWC in good faith." Is a throw away line and means nothing. It actually is evidence that the poaching fee should be enforced. I.e., the Pac12 knowingly and willingly entered this contract.
4) "Its suit is much like that of FSU and Clemson v ACC trying to get out of grant of rights claiming exit fees are "exorbitant." is not really that true. Pac12's lawsuit is not saying the fees are too high, but a) that they were in financial distress and forced into a contract; aka the mean MWC took advantage of us, and b) the MWC is already being compensated by the $17M exit fees the schools are paying for leaving.
TBH, the MWC has the law on it's side.