Maryland’s $157 million counterclaim: ACC recruited B1G schools | Page 17 | The Boneyard

Maryland’s $157 million counterclaim: ACC recruited B1G schools

Status
Not open for further replies.
btstimpy said:
I know exactly what happened in Maryland court. All complaints about injury to Maryland were dismissed. The motion to change venue was denied. The overlap with the ACC case in North Carolina was stayed to defer to the North Carolina Court. And the Maryland appeal in Maryland court was dismissed.
Expand ...
There was no hearing on the merits. The case is on hold until after the disposition of the NC case. Nothing more and nothing less.
 
SAMCRO said:
That was my point. This is just as much or more about not giving FSU a get out of the ACC on the cheap option (even though I don't think they have ny interest in leaving right now) than as it is about collecting cash from UMd.
Expand ...

billybud can give you a more informed answer than I, but, I will offer you my .02 worth...

I never thought that FSU was going to leave the ACC. Theirs and Clemson's 'threat' of the Big 12 was to break the complete hold that basketball has held on this league since its inception. And, it worked. And, I couldn't be happier about it working, as I am a football-first UNC fan. I love UNC hoops as much as almost any UNC fan, but, I want them to stop making making the FB team the red-headed step-child of the University.

Its time for somebody other than FSU and CU to carry the water for the league.

And, I still hold out hope that UConn will be in the ACC with us.
 
CL82 said:
The ability to compel a non-party to produce documents is limited. Minimally you need to articulate a rational basis for the information that relates to the suit. The B1G isn't being drawn into this, unless the ACC amends it's complaint, which it could do. I suspect that it won't.
Expand ...

Come on, CL, do you really believe that Delany was not involved in this? Really?

As commissioner of the B1G, how can he not be involved? The move to bring UMD into the league had to have his stamp of approval to go forward. Or, is that not a logical conclusion?
 
The last part of President Barron's infamous public email about FSU not being interested in the Big 12.

"The faculty are adamantly opposed to joining a league that is academically weaker. Instead we prefer to admit schools that make our current league academically inferior. In this way we maintain our football superiority by not moving to league with better competition and make our suspect academics look better by associating with glorified commuter colleges. Many of our alumni, students and professor resent the fact that we would bully a conference into setting aside it's vaunted academic priorities in order to keep us in league that no longer makes geographic sense but football interests now run this college, and have for a long time, so I could not care less what they think.

I present these issues to you so that you realize that this is not so simple (and to make you aware that if you are not a prominent football booster we do not give a hoot about what you think). We can't afford to have conference affiliation to be based on a careful assessment of athletics, finances and academics, instead it must be a game of chicken with those arrogant jackasses in North Carolina.

I assure you that every aspect of conference affiliation will be looked at by this institution, but a decision will be based upon personal ego and, of course, football.

Eric Barron President
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ah, now that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
SouthronCross said:
Come on, CL, do you really believe that Delany was not involved in this? Really?

As commissioner of the B1G, how can he not be involved? The move to bring UMD into the league had to have his stamp of approval to go forward. Or, is that not a logical conclusion?
Expand ...
Involved how, Southron? It needs to be involved in a way that relevant to the suit, to an allegation or defense at issue in the suit. I don't think it is, based upon my recollection of what's been alleged to date. Now, if the ACC made a interference with contract allegation that would change things. If they did, might not other schools do the same to the ACC? Then, as billybud says, things would get interesting.

I think the 17 million number may turn out to be where they end up, but you can make a case for none that is pretty reasonable.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
There was no hearing on the merits. The case is on hold until after the disposition of the NC case. Nothing more and nothing less.
Expand ...
The Merits of Maryland's anti -trust claims were ruled on and dismissed by Judge John Paul Davey. They have shown back up in the Counter Suit, and they will most likely be dismissed once again in North Carolina court. This is the part authorizing the ACC to offset the Exit Fee by holding all of Maryland's revenue from the ACC.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ounty-judge-stays-decision-in-maryland-v-acc/

His opionion was 36 pages long.

Davey also dismissed an antitrust claim, one of Maryland’s counts in its lawsuit against the ACC, based on the court’s findings that “by Maryland’s own admissions and actions, its freedom to associate with various conferences has not been impeded by the Withdrawal Payment and, in fact, publically declares. the financial benefit of joining the Big Ten Conference.”
He kept Maryland’s remaining three counts intact, but stayed them.

The part stayed, or put on hold as you say, is the part overlapping the ACC's case.
 
CL82 said:
Involved how, Southron? It needs to be involved in a way that relevant to the suit, to an allegation or defense at issue in the suit. I don't think it is, based upon my recollection of what's been alleged to date. Now, if the ACC made a interference with contract allegation that would change things. If they did, might not other schools do the same to the ACC? Then, as billybud says, things would get interesting.

I think the 17 million number may turn out to be where they end up, but you can make a case for none that is pretty reasonable.
Expand ...

Maryland is alleging that the ACC tried to poach Big Ten schools. They allege that Wake Forest and Pittsburgh did it. By issuing a subpoena to Pittsburgh, they will need to do so to Wake Forest as well. Then the ACC will issue them to whomever Wake and Pitt allegedly spoke with, and Maryland will need to produce their records too. All of this is legal cost to Wake, Pitt, and the Big Ten schools not named yet.

And don't forget Maryland is alleging that the ACC "attempted" to poach schools. One must not forget that it is the Big Ten who actually "succeeded" in poaching schools. The next logical step is a counter-counter suit with $450 million in damages against that Big Ten poaching. Delaney would get involved then.
 
btstimpy said:
Maryland is alleging that the ACC tried to poach Big Ten schools. They allege that Wake Forest and Pittsburgh did it. By issuing a subpoena to Pittsburgh, they will need to do so to Wake Forest as well. Then the ACC will issue them to whomever Wake and Pitt allegedly spoke with, and Maryland will need to produce their records too. All of this is legal cost to Wake, Pitt, and the Big Ten schools not named yet.

And don't forget Maryland is alleging that the ACC "attempted" to poach schools. One must not forget that it is the Big Ten who actually "succeeded" in poaching schools. The next logical step is a counter-counter suit with $450 million in damages against that Big Ten poaching. Delaney would get involved then.
Expand ...
Logical? Hardly.
 
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Just a maneuver aimed at moving the settlement along...

Methinks that the ACC will play stubborn and counter...subpoena Maryland's and the Big Ten offices emails and phone records and travel documents.
 
CL82 said:
Logical? Hardly.
Expand ...
Yes Logical using Maryland's complaint in the Counterclaim as basis. In fact, much of the language could be copied into the counter-counter claim. And Maryland would still owe the Exit Fee because all of this is just diversion. It should all be there right in the motion to dismiss the Maryland Counterclaim, and filed should the Maryland Counterclaim not be dismissed.
 
billybud said:
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Just a maneuver aimed at moving the settlement along...

Methinks that the ACC will play stubborn and counter...subpoena Maryland's and the Big Ten offices emails and phone records and travel documents.
Expand ...

There is no reason to settle, and it is not stubborn to refuse to do so. The number is set. $52 million. If Maryland chose not to include it in their calculations, that's their problem. They were perfectly aware of its existence. If they did include it, then pay it and leave.
 
.-.
It will eventually end up $20 million.

There are weaknesses in the $52 million ACC case related to internal consistency with conference policy re notice, related to the amount of the exit fee as a true liquidated damage vs a punitive fee.
 
billybud said:
full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Just a maneuver aimed at moving the settlement along...

Methinks that the ACC will play stubborn and counter...subpoena Maryland's and the Big Ten offices emails and phone records and travel documents.
Expand ...
I suppose they could but it wouldn't be enforceable.
 
btstimpy said:
Yes Logical using Maryland's complaint in the Counterclaim as basis. In fact, much of the language could be copied into the counter-counter claim. And Maryland would still owe the Exit Fee because all of this is just diversion. It should all be there right in the motion to dismiss the Maryland Counterclaim, and filed should the Maryland Counterclaim not be dismissed.
Expand ...
No. Just no.
 
I would be surprised at a $52 million judgment. In a suit that revolves around the intricacies of a contract (the bylaws) vs the actions of the parties, that contract must be examined in context of the actions that the parties took.

If the contract has a clause that requires a 15 day notice for an amendment and that notice was not given, then one might assume that the amendment action was not consistent with the bylaws requirement. And, thus, may not be valid.

FSU's President went on the record that he was blindsided at the meeting by the amendment and called the BOT Chair overnight to discuss it. The FSU BOT Chair went on the record as opposing.

Sounds to me that there is a real process weakness in the ACC case. Process, as delineated in the bylaws, not followed = invalid result of process.
 
.-.
btstimpy said:
There is no reason to settle, and it is not stubborn to refuse to do so. The number is set. $52 million. If Maryland chose not to include it in their calculations, that's their problem. They were perfectly aware of its existence. If they did include it, then pay it and leave.
Expand ...

Out of curiosity, assume you're a member in a book club. The club votes at a meeting properly called and held (with everyone voting in favor but you) that if you stop coming to meetings, you (and every other member) owes the club $1M. You really think that you owe the $1M and there are no issues you could raise as a defense as to whether you really gave the organization power to hold you to that?
 
businesslawyer said:
Out of curiosity, assume you're a member in a book club. The club votes at a meeting properly called and held (with everyone voting in favor but you) that if you stop coming to meetings, you (and every other member) owes the club $1M. You really think that you owe the $1M and there are no issues you could raise as a defense as to whether you really gave the organization power to hold you to that?
Expand ...

If I voted previously to authorize the membership to pass rules by 75% vote that I would be bound by, then yes. And if I felt strongly enough about it, I'd ask for another vote to exempt me personally. That request was not made. In fact no special consideration was requested.
 
btstimpy said:
If I voted previously to authorize the membership to pass rules by 75% vote that I would be bound by, then yes. And if I felt strongly enough about it, I'd ask for another vote to exempt me personally. That request was not made. In fact no special consideration was requested.
Expand ...

I think you're simplifying your summary of the ACC's by-laws and notice provisions. Of course, running with your argument, why don't the ACC's teams sneak up on FSU and Clemson at the next meeting and make the exit penalty $520 million?

Under your theory, they can. So why don't they?
 
businesslawyer said:
Out of curiosity, assume you're a member in a book club. The club votes at a meeting properly called and held (with everyone voting in favor but you) that if you stop coming to meetings, you (and every other member) owes the club $1M. You really think that you owe the $1M and there are no issues you could raise as a defense as to whether you really gave the organization power to hold you to that?
Expand ...

A multibillion dollar organization membership and a book club membership are 2 completely separate cases.

Generally you don't sign a legally binding contract to join a book club. In this case, Maryland signed a legally binding contract to join and stay a member of the ACC. This meant that they were subject to a rule passing with 75% of members voting for it.

A better example is HOA's. There have been many cases of people getting evicted from their homes or paying large amounts of money to settle HOA fines where the homeowner may not have agreed with them or voted against them. In several cases the laws were passed after the homeowner bought the house. You could easily argue that the HOA laws were punitive or excessive but the fact is that in nearly all cases, the law has sided with the HOA's.

Maryland knew and accepted the ACC's laws for a long time and they benefited Maryland well. They decided to bolt for the B1G when they saw what they thought was a better opportunity and all the sudden they don't agree with the laws that were fine before. I'm quite sure that if the ACC had imploded due to Maryland's action, Maryland could have cared less. Maryland is trying to weasel out of their obligation plain and simple.
 
CL82 said:
Involved how, Southron? It needs to be involved in a way that relevant to the suit, to an allegation or defense at issue in the suit. I don't think it is, based upon my recollection of what's been alleged to date. Now, if the ACC made a interference with contract allegation that would change things. If they did, might not other schools do the same to the ACC? Then, as billybud says, things would get interesting.

In the decision-making process, perhaps. Guys like Delany and Swofford are control freaks. They might plead ignorance, but, you can be certain that they know full damn well whats going on within their fiefdoms.

What you say is 100 percent true. His relevance to any legal action would have to proven, and, the ACC does not have that. At least that I know of. One of those what you know and what you can prove type things.

I think the 17 million number may turn out to be where they end up, but you can make a case for none that is pretty reasonable.
Expand ...

I do not see any scenario where they can make a case for zero, seeing as how they DID vote for the original $17M.

Unless the court says that the ACC can keep $17M out of what they've withheld to this point.
 
UConn9604 said:
I think you're simplifying your summary of the ACC's by-laws and notice provisions. Of course, running with your argument, why don't the ACC's teams sneak up on FSU and Clemson at the next meeting and make the exit penalty $520 million?

Under your theory, they can. So why don't they?
Expand ...

The only sneaky party involved was Maryland, and they are leaving. What makes it doubly sneaky is that the whole Exit Fee idea is Maryland's idea to begin with. They were so sneaky they blindsided their own fans. Many of them are still perturbed. The wishes of the rest of the members and dialog between the rest are quite open. No need for sneaky.
 
.-.
larryredbull said:
A multibillion dollar organization membership and a book club membership are 2 completely separate cases.

Generally you don't sign a legally binding contract to join a book club. In this case, Maryland signed a legally binding contract to join and stay a member of the ACC. This meant that they were subject to a rule passing with 75% of members voting for it.

A better example is HOA's. There have been many cases of people getting evicted from their homes or paying large amounts of money to settle HOA fines where the homeowner may not have agreed with them or voted against them. In several cases the laws were passed after the homeowner bought the house. You could easily argue that the HOA laws were punitive or excessive but the fact is that in nearly all cases, the law has sided with the HOA's.

Maryland knew and accepted the ACC's laws for a long time and they benefited Maryland well. They decided to bolt for the B1G when they saw what they thought was a better opportunity and all the sudden they don't agree with the laws that were fine before. I'm quite sure that if the ACC had imploded due to Maryland's action, Maryland could have cared less. Maryland is trying to weasel out of their obligation plain and simple.
Expand ...

No, that's not a better example because states generally specifically regulate and authorize homeowners associations.
 
businesslawyer said:
No, that's not a better example because states generally specifically regulate and authorize homeowners associations.
Expand ...
Fees are not generally not excessive, nor punitive.
 
btstimpy said:
The only sneaky party involved was Maryland, and they are leaving. What makes it doubly sneaky is that the whole Exit Fee idea is Maryland's idea to begin with. They were so sneaky they blindsided their own fans. Many of them are still perturbed. The wishes of the rest of the members and dialog between the rest are quite open. No need for sneaky.
Expand ...

Let's put it this way -- isn't it in (pick 8 lower schools in the ACC, like Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, Miami, Louisville, N.C. State, Boston College)'s best interest to lock down FSU and Clemson forever?

So, why not $5.2 billion as an exit fee?
 
UConn9604 said:
Let's put it this way -- isn't it in (pick 8 lower schools in the ACC, like Wake Forest, Pitt, Syracuse, Miami, Louisville, N.C. State, Boston College)'s best interest to lock down FSU and Clemson forever?

So, why not $5.2 billion as an exit fee?
Expand ...

Not following what you mean by lower. Smaller enrollment? Smaller football stadium? The Exit Fee is based on operating revenue. It's not arbitrary. And no one is locked down. Anyone that wants to leave can pay the fee and leave as well as leave their broadcast rights behind.
 
btstimpy said:
Not following what you mean by lower. Smaller enrollment? Smaller football stadium? The Exit Fee is based on operating revenue. It's not arbitrary. And no one is locked down. Anyone that wants to leave can pay the fee and leave as well as leave their broadcast rights behind.
Expand ...

"Lower" = "Crappier programs with no other conference options"

The irony is that the programs that he suggests locking down are not the ones with particularly good options elsewhere.
 
Fishy said:
"Lower" = "Crappier programs with no other conference options"

The irony is that the programs that he suggests locking down are not the ones with particularly good options elsewhere.
Expand ...

Ah. Less desireable by the SEC's or Big Ten's expansion criteria. Got it. Wasn't sure what was meant by lower.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,344
Messages
4,566,115
Members
10,467
Latest member
MrDownunder


Top Bottom