OK I feel I "little better" if this is true.

[Bullmastiff 1]

MWC attorney be like: Judge in case that the poaching fees are anti trust violations...EXHIBIT A

I'm still curious to know what the ramifications would be if there was evidence (communications) that the PAC and the traitor 4 were in talks prior to the scheduling agreement. Because if they were, and they had input on how that buyout/exit/poaching fees thingy was drafted it feels real collusiony. They would have been having input on conference decisions knowing they were going to bounce.

Something you think the MWC might be looking to investigate?

 

[oneepstein]

I'm still curious to know what the ramifications would be if there was evidence (communications) that the PAC and the traitor 4 were in talks prior to the scheduling agreement. Because if they were, and they had input on how that buyout/exit/poaching fees thingy was drafted it feels real collusiony. They would have been having input on conference decisions knowing they were going to bounce.

Something you think the MWC might be looking to investigate?

100% this would be a threat during any legal negotiations/ proceedings. I’d say they couldn’t be THAT stupid but…

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

100% this would be a threat during any legal negotiations/ proceedings. I’d say they couldn’t be THAT stupid but…

DO IT DO IT DO IT!

 

[oneepstein]

DO IT DO IT DO IT!

They’d subpoena everything. My guess is nobody on their side would want that and would put up every road block imaginable, but if they stick to their guns that’ll be the straw that breaks the PACs back.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

They’d subpoena everything. My guess is nobody on their side would want that and would put up every road block imaginable, but if they stick to their guns that’ll be the straw that breaks the PACs back.

I'm telling you it feels like this stuff was going on before that scheduling agreement was made.

 

[utestream]

They’d subpoena everything. My guess is nobody on their side would want that and would put up every road block imaginable, but if they stick to their guns that’ll be the straw that breaks the PACs back.

What may break the back of the Pac12/2/7 is the multimillion dollar lawsuit against them by Reggie Bush.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

What may break the back of the Pac12/2/7 is the multimillion dollar lawsuit against them by Reggie Bush.

LOL!

You guys are the PAC now. Pay up!

We aren't that PAC!

 

[Masked_rebel]

Sorry, who's the Pac conference you speak of? They are forever know as the Temu12

 

[Loyal Coug1]

I'm still curious to know what the ramifications would be if there was evidence (communications) that the PAC and the traitor 4 were in talks prior to the scheduling agreement. Because if they were, and they had input on how that buyout/exit/poaching fees thingy was drafted it feels real collusiony. They would have been having input on conference decisions knowing they were going to bounce.

Something you think the MWC might be looking to investigate?

I don't know what NCAA rules say, but I guess I have to ask exactly what is wrong with taking to teams in other conferences. I'm sure the MW and Pac lawyers had things covered.

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

I don't know what NCAA rules say, but I guess I have to ask exactly what is wrong with taking to teams in other conferences. I'm sure the MW and Pac lawyers had things covered.

If PAC and the 4 were negotiating with the intent to break off and the 4 were simultaneously getting say in any decisions and possibly steering discussions in a direction that was beneficial to their exit plan, seems like a problem no?

 

[Bullmastiff 1]

I don't know what NCAA rules say, but I guess I have to ask exactly what is wrong with taking to teams in other conferences. I'm sure the MW and Pac lawyers had things covered.

I'm no lawyer but if there is a way to stick it to the new PAC and tie up more of their money in litigation I'm all for it.

I know you were for reverse merger. You hate this shit as much as we do. .

 

[oneepstein]

If PAC and the 4 were negotiating with the intent to break off and the 4 were simultaneously getting say in any decisions and possibly steering discussions in a direction that was beneficial to their exit plan, seems like a problem no?

Absolute no no.

Would be beyond any exit fees and penalties and into areas of direct harm… they’d get sued well beyond what they think they owe.