Pac-12 and MWC Lawsuit Update
- Thread starter Meister_Rebel
- Start date
So if we lose the case (MWC) then we just got handed the biggest L in a long time. We could of been in the Pac-12 and looked much more attractive in the eyes of EVERYBODY! Instead we are playing in a crappy ass conference. Take significantly less and it also a BIG L.
We are still getting the almost $90 million in exit fees.
I don't see us losing this lawsuit. They are saying that the Agreement violated anti-trust agreements by hurting their competition. There is nothing in the Agreement that said they couldn't do what they did. They could have merged so how does that hurt their competition. They could re-build the Pac-12 which they chose to do. We didn't try to stop them. All the Agreement said is if you (re-build) by taking MW teams that you have to pay a Termination Fee based on the number of schools taken. They agreed to that. They didn't have to sign the agreement. But they did. Now when it comes time to pay they are making excuses. F'em.
I don’t trust courts, I don’t trust judges either. That’s my default now. They’re buyable.
On the other side if the PAC loses not only will they be required to pay, they also could get hit with liquidated damages and legal cost into the millions.
There's little chance this motion is granted, and I've only seen 1 or 2 in my career granted. This motion is prior to ANY discovery being done and a judge isn't going to take the case out of the hands of a jury until there is enough evidence to do so. The motion will be denied and the Temu-7 will shout from the mountain tops that this was a huge win for them....but it's not. If discovery is complete and then the judge denies a motion to summarily adjudicate the case, then it's a 50/50 toss up who wins. That would be a huge win for "those guys."
Also, federal court is so much different than a state court. The jury pool for a Federal jury trial is more sophisticated and requires an anonymous jury to issue a judgment. In a county court you only need 8/12 jurors to win. Pac-2 has an uphill battle which is why this case will settle for less money.
***** A motion to dimiss is asking a judge to look at the complaint itself and determine that EVEN IF ALL THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PAC-2 COMPLAINT ARE TRUE, there is no remedy to award them or no way they could win. It's a HUGE hurdle to overcome in EVERY CASE.
Also, federal court is so much different than a state court. The jury pool for a Federal jury trial is more sophisticated and requires an anonymous jury to issue a judgment. In a county court you only need 8/12 jurors to win. Pac-2 has an uphill battle which is why this case will settle for less money.
***** A motion to dimiss is asking a judge to look at the complaint itself and determine that EVEN IF ALL THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE PAC-2 COMPLAINT ARE TRUE, there is no remedy to award them or no way they could win. It's a HUGE hurdle to overcome in EVERY CASE.
Last edited:
I wouldn't count on more than 55 mil in exit fees.
Industry standard across the country is 2 years worth of media value with a 2 year notice ( or less). That is 11 mil per school ( perhaps more for Boise, but they tend to round it down).
Every conference has these by laws, yet no one pays these exit fees in full, no one. They are always negotiated.
The poaching fees, should hold up if the lawsuit is thrown out.
Right. I forgot also about interest payments. They would have to pay interest on the money. It's stated in the agreement.
Pretty good breakdown on strength/weaknesses of PACs lawsuit.
Should we add that they turned around and gave the same type of exit fees (that are standard in industry) to their new members?
This would have to strengthen the MWC in the courtroom, I would think.
It's hypocritical for them to claim otherwise.
I don't see the "Exit Fees" argument as the same thing. It's a distinct separate issue. No one is suing in regards to "Exit Fees". The Scheduling Agreement is separate and the "Termination Fees" within the Agreement are the issue. I can't see how the "Exit Fees" argument would even be brought up in court. I'm not a lawyer but, the "Exit Fees" don't apply here imo.
Fees are fees. Exit fees are used to help prevent teams from leaving the conference, or if they leave, to mitigate the loses in regards to network value for the conference. The termination fees are also used to help prevent the loss in value within the conference from the PAC coming into the MWC and asking for their help to save their conference, and then using proprietary connections to poach from the MWC, and thus also reducing the media value of the conference.
The question will be if on a legal standing the courts agree that exit fees and termination fees are both two sides of the same coin?
There was no money there to buyout of the MW… the Bossters wanted out of the MW as well, but didn’t have the funds to make it happen.
Based on what information? I know a lot of boosters and people with money, and I didn't get the feeling they couldn't come up with the money, instead I expect there are other thing going on that are beyond what is being verbalized to the general public. That general public is including me.
You still owe me $4789.23
I have his money tied up in government bonds and universal life policies… which I’d be happy to help you with, too! Call me to set up a free consultation.
Jokes on you I transferred all that money to the nice Indian sounding Gentleman named John Smith from AMERICAN INVESTING COMPANY who called today promising he could double it in a few short weeks. All I had to do was give him my SS# address and date of birth and he would handle the rest..
I appreciate the business Bull. Anyone else want to invest? Bull has my contact information
.That said, you all know that this Coug thinks the Pac lawsuit is a bunch of BS. Which causes me to get grief on my trainwreck of a board, where Coug topics only occasionally appear in amongst the multiple political threads.
While of course I should be rooting for the Pac to prevail, I don't see any merit in our crybaby lawsuit. And what in the poaching fees is that different from the draconian GOR's, etc. that the ACC has? Talk about anti-trust and hurting competition.
And yes others in this thread are correct in distinguishing the poaching lawsuit/issue from the exit fee issue. 2 completely different and unrelated matters.
Similar threads
