Maryland Lawsuit | Page 5 | The Boneyard

Maryland Lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

UConn9604

Unanimous votes are not required to amend the bylaws. There are rules for how many affirmative votes are required to pass bylaws. Unanimous votes are not required in the court system either, and the judges should understand this.


That's not the point. 12 teams went into a meeting as members of a group, and the price of leaving the group was $20.

Then, a rule change was made to increase the price of leaving the group to $52. What are your options at that point? You're already in the group and you cannot get out for $20 because you just lost a 10-2 vote.

The only recourse that any member of the ACC has in response to an unfair practice of the league is to leave it. Yet the unfair practice in question increased the cost of doing so. Is that fair?

Note that we haven't even discussed the principles of liquidated damages, which exist to prescribe contractual damages in the event of a breach, where the damages are difficult to quantify, where the amount is reasonable based on the harm caused and the difficulty in finding replacement performance, and if the number is structured as a damage -- not as a "penalty." The ACC is going to have an impossible time proving "damages" when it had numerous suitors-in-waiting when Maryland left (including us) and actually upgraded in all sports except lacrosse.

I'd put the over/under on Maryland's "damages" at $26 million (or half) and I'm taking the under. Heavy.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
79
Reaction Score
18
Here's something that I think you're missing. Before all 12 ACC schools walked into a meeting, the penalty for leaving was $20 million. At the meeting, the proposal was voted upon to increase the exit fee to $52 million.

What option does Maryland have if it doesn't like the $52 million fee? Because 10 ACC schools voted "yes," Maryland's exit fee went up by $32 million. Are you saying that there was nothing Maryland could do except take it? That's not going to fly very well, for what it's worth.
Maryland's lawsuit is all about whether or not the ACC followed proper procedure. Even if Maryland and Florida State voted against the 52 million dollar exit fee all it takes is 3/4 of all members being in favor for the bylaws being amended.

I would have thought that the crux of Maryland's case would revolve around procedural issues....such as due notice, as delineated by the Bylaws, prior to a Bylaw amendment.

When speaking of the amendment of the ACC Constitution (Bylaws):

Article X

Section X-1

The constitution may be amended at any regular or special meeting by three-fourths of the members. The proposed amendment shall be submitted, in writing, four weeks before the meeting, through the commissioner to the Constitution and Bylaws Committee for review. The commissioner shall send complete copies of the proposed amendments to all members at least fifteen (15) days before the meeting.

It is my understanding that the proposed amendment was not vetted properly and that it was a surprise proposal.

The requirement that the amendment be approved by three-fourths of the members is not an issue, but I believe that if the ACC failed to follow due process for an amendment, as outlined in the ACC Constitution, it may be a weakness in their case.

Maryland is arguing Swofford didn't give them the proposed amendment 15 days before the meeting where it was amended. If Swofford didn't follow procedure Maryland may win, but if he did then Maryland isn't going to win.
 
U

UConn9604

Maryland is arguing Swofford didn't give them the proposed amendment 15 days before the meeting where it was amended. If Swofford didn't follow procedure Maryland may win, but if he did then Maryland isn't going to win.


The provision still has to satisfy the requirements of liquidated damages clauses. You seem to be implying/assuming that it does, and that the case is all about procedure. I don't think that's accurate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenh...uit-filed-against-the-university-of-maryland/
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
424
Reaction Score
148
Ah but the Big East did that after the schools gave notice, not prior. Big difference.


Yes, in this case (MD), it appears that it was only a verbal notice to leave, without filing the paperwork. I think there's a fair chance they're back in the ACC when the dust clears. That would be sweet in terms of derailing Delaney, who has been as culpable as ESPN when it comes to all this upheaval from realignment. And of course you guys would have a safe landing in the Big 10. I see you guys and Rutgers as a better package deal for them than Rutgers and Maryland.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2011
Messages
79
Reaction Score
18
The provision still has to satisfy the requirements of liquidated damages clauses. You seem to be implying/assuming that it does, and that the case is all about procedure. I don't think that's accurate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/darrenh...uit-filed-against-the-university-of-maryland/
I don't think Maryland will follow the advice of that article because then Grant of Rights could be argued are liquidated damages and any school wanting to withdraw from a conference would argue GOR are punitive. Also, the ACC can argue that the loss of the Maryland media market for a potential ACC Network will cause the conference to lose money and that is where the 52 million dollars is coming from. I don't think the punitive argument will work for Maryland because the bylaws were amended by the conference, and the conference followed its own bylaws which only require 3/4 support to ratify. This case boils down to whether Swofford followed the bylaws and gave the proposed change to the 12 Presidents 15 days before the meeting to vote on them. Apparently, the reason FSU voted against it was because the FSU president claimed he never received the proposed amendment 15 days prior to the meeting and his BOT chairman told him to vote against it to for any potential litigation. This case is about procedure IMO.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
424
Reaction Score
148
That's not the point. 12 teams went into a meeting as members of a group, and the price of leaving the group was $20.

Then, a rule change was made to increase the price of leaving the group to $52. What are your options at that point? You're already in the group and you cannot get out for $20 because you just lost a 10-2 vote.

The only recourse that any member of the ACC has in response to an unfair practice of the league is to leave it. Yet the unfair practice in question increased the cost of doing so. Is that fair?

Note that we haven't even discussed the principles of liquidated damages, which exist to prescribe contractual damages in the event of a breach, where the damages are difficult to quantify, where the amount is reasonable based on the harm caused and the difficulty in finding replacement performance, and if the number is structured as a damage -- not as a "penalty." The ACC is going to have an impossible time proving "damages" when it had numerous suitors-in-waiting when Maryland left (including us) and actually upgraded in all sports except lacrosse.

I'd put the over/under on Maryland's "damages" at $26 million (or half) and I'm taking the under. Heavy.


Those who argue that the liquidated damages clause is punitive and unrelated to actual harm, because the ACC was able to quickly replace MD with Louisville are missing a big part of the argument, in my opinion.

I think that the risk to the ACC of the MD departure was to destabilize the league, and if Fla State and Clemson suddenly left for the SEC, or another destination, then the league's overall value declines by an enormous amount, regardless of whether or not there are "replacement" schools. Just look at the Big East and see my argument in place - is the Big East worth as much now, or is your new conference, as they were before?

While the contracts might not be too bad for right now, because the Big East was underpaid, the damages will last long into the future, in terms of lost prestige, and lower value of future television contracts. I think that this is the basis for claiming the $52M is rational, in light of the league potentially being destroyed.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
1,919
Reaction Score
3,210
I don't think Maryland will follow the advice of that article because then Grant of Rights could be argued are liquidated damages and any school wanting to withdraw from a conference would argue GOR are punitive. Also, the ACC can argue that the loss of the Maryland media market for a potential ACC Network will cause the conference to lose money and that is where the 52 million dollars is coming from. I don't think the punitive argument will work for Maryland because the bylaws were amended by the conference, and the conference followed its own bylaws which only require 3/4 support to ratify. This case boils down to whether Swofford followed the bylaws and gave the proposed change to the 12 Presidents 15 days before the meeting to vote on them. Apparently, the reason FSU voted against it was because the FSU president claimed he never received the proposed amendment 15 days prior to the meeting and his BOT chairman told him to vote against it to for any potential litigation. This case is about procedure IMO.

I have my doubts the court awards potential future damages. The ACC network does not exist, did not exist when UMD gave verbal notice, and did not exist when the vote for the exit fee occurred.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
1,485
Reaction Score
2,587
I don't think Maryland will follow the advice of that article because then Grant of Rights could be argued are liquidated damages and any school wanting to withdraw from a conference would argue GOR are punitive. Also, the ACC can argue that the loss of the Maryland media market for a potential ACC Network will cause the conference to lose money and that is where the 52 million dollars is coming from. I don't think the punitive argument will work for Maryland because the bylaws were amended by the conference, and the conference followed its own bylaws which only require 3/4 support to ratify. This case boils down to whether Swofford followed the bylaws and gave the proposed change to the 12 Presidents 15 days before the meeting to vote on them. Apparently, the reason FSU voted against it was because the FSU president claimed he never received the proposed amendment 15 days prior to the meeting and his BOT chairman told him to vote against it to for any potential litigation. This case is about procedure IMO.
The only CR case that ever went to trial was decided based on bylaws and procedures. The BE did not follow its bylaws and procedures and lost their case against BC. If the ACC did not learn from that example, then they lose this case. Whether or not MD voted for the change, as a member of the conference, they are subject to whatever is voted whether they supported it or not provided it follows all bylaws. If they were dead set against it, they could have withdrawn from the conference before it became effective.

At some point, after the lawyers get paid a lot of money, this thing settles in the high $20 million range. MD will be in the B1G in 2014.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
12,300
Reaction Score
19,589
Those who argue that the liquidated damages clause is punitive and unrelated to actual harm, because the ACC was able to quickly replace MD with Louisville are missing a big part of the argument, in my opinion.

I think that the risk to the ACC of the MD departure was to destabilize the league, and if Fla State and Clemson suddenly left for the SEC, or another destination, then the league's overall value declines by an enormous amount, regardless of whether or not there are "replacement" schools. Just look at the Big East and see my argument in place - is the Big East worth as much now, or is your new conference, as they were before?

While the contracts might not be too bad for right now, because the Big East was underpaid, the damages will last long into the future, in terms of lost prestige, and lower value of future television contracts. I think that this is the basis for claiming the $52M is rational, in light of the league potentially being destroyed.
Problem with that analysis is that they weren't destroyed. In fact, and argument could be made that they are actually better off with Louisville and Notre Dame. They certainly had a few uncomfortable days, but that was about all. But that would have been the case even if Maryland ponied up the $50 million. This case has all the earmarks of one to be settled at some point probably with a smaller payment and maybe a couple of football games.
 

The Funster

What?
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,949
Reaction Score
8,655
Yes, in this case (MD), it appears that it was only a verbal notice to leave, without filing the paperwork. I think there's a fair chance they're back in the ACC when the dust clears. That would be sweet in terms of derailing Delaney, who has been as culpable as ESPN when it comes to all this upheaval from realignment. And of course you guys would have a safe landing in the Big 10. I see you guys and Rutgers as a better package deal for them than Rutgers and Maryland.

Delany has been less culpable for conference upheaval than Swofford. Delany has been on record that he does not want a part of his legacy to be that he helped wreck a conference. In comparison, Swofford has gone all out to tear apart the Big East.

Also I believe Maryland is better fit for the B1G than UConn. Maryland does pull in the DC market which is a plum that cannot be ignored. I can see Delany thinking that if he cannot get MD that Rutgers isn't worth it. And, while I did not believe it possible a year ago I am now convinced that the B1G will not invite anyone that doesn't have AAU status and that leaves UConn out.

In the end, I don't think it matters because I cannot see MD returning to the ACC. They will get into the B1G and it will probably get pretty messy before it eventually happens but it will happen.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,515
Reaction Score
206,309
Maryland could try that sure. But then they open themselves up to a ton of procedural votes to change the ACC Bylaws that could add some very interesting language to the bylaws involving Maryland specifically that Maryland might not like in addition to legal action by the Big Ten. And the votes would be there to do it. Maryland will be best served by paying the $52 million and joining the Big Ten in 2014. The ACC has already replaced them, and the Big Ten is already incorporating them. They should fulfill their legal obligation and move.
Not at all sure how you envision the ACC "changing Maryland bylaws.

Regardless, whether by accident or design, Maryland has the ACC outflanked on this. There is zero, repeat zero, chance that they'll be ponying up $52 million.
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,515
Reaction Score
206,309
Those who argue that the liquidated damages clause is punitive and unrelated to actual harm, because the ACC was able to quickly replace MD with Louisville are missing a big part of the argument, in my opinion.

I think that the risk to the ACC of the MD departure was to destabilize the league, and if Fla State and Clemson suddenly left for the SEC, or another destination, then the league's overall value declines by an enormous amount, regardless of whether or not there are "replacement" schools. Just look at the Big East and see my argument in place - is the Big East worth as much now, or is your new conference, as they were before?

While the contracts might not be too bad for right now, because the Big East was underpaid, the damages will last long into the future, in terms of lost prestige, and lower value of future television contracts. I think that this is the basis for claiming the $52M is rational, in light of the league potentially being destroyed.
That argument at its best was speculative, but now, given that the value of their contract has improved since Maryland's departure, is meritless.

Yes, in this case (MD), it appears that it was only a verbal notice to leave, without filing the paperwork. I think there's a fair chance they're back in the ACC when the dust clears. That would be sweet in terms of derailing Delaney, who has been as culpable as ESPN when it comes to all this upheaval from realignment. And of course you guys would have a safe landing in the Big 10. I see you guys and Rutgers as a better package deal for them than Rutgers and Maryland.
I wish this were true Matt, but I highly doubt it.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
1,228
Reaction Score
368
Delany has been less culpable for conference upheaval than Swofford. Delany has been on record that he does not want a part of his legacy to be that he helped wreck a conference. In comparison, Swofford has gone all out to tear apart the Big East.

Also I believe Maryland is better fit for the B1G than UConn. Maryland does pull in the DC market which is a plum that cannot be ignored. I can see Delany thinking that if he cannot get MD that Rutgers isn't worth it. And, while I did not believe it possible a year ago I am now convinced that the B1G will not invite anyone that doesn't have AAU status and that leaves UConn out.

In the end, I don't think it matters because I cannot see MD returning to the ACC. They will get into the B1G and it will probably get pretty messy before it eventually happens but it will happen.

I'm waiting for the results of Delany's deposition as well as the other ACC schools that the Big Ten did approach because there were some especially if they were approached before Maryland's September vote on the exit fee increase. We'll finally get a clean public look at what the Big Ten put in front of Maryland as far as projections.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,147
Reaction Score
45,610
Problem with that analysis is that they weren't destroyed. In fact, and argument could be made that they are actually better off with Louisville and Notre Dame. They certainly had a few uncomfortable days, but that was about all. But that would have been the case even if Maryland ponied up the $50 million. This case has all the earmarks of one to be settled at some point probably with a smaller payment and maybe a couple of football games.

Especially since the conference destroyed another conference...
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
1,485
Reaction Score
2,587
Especially since the conference destroyed another conference...
At some point, people need to look and acknowledge that the BE and its member schools played a large role in destroying itself. It did nothing to make itself more attractive to its most valuable FB members. The FB schools bowed to the wishes of the BB-centric leadership and the BB schools over and over again based on a quaint idea that what started the conference remained ideal 25 years later. When Miami and VT left, the FB schools had the right idea but let the BB leadership move them away from the right solution. Whatever money was being left on the table 10 years ago if the schools split is minor in comparison to the money being lost now.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,147
Reaction Score
45,610
At some point, people need to look and acknowledge that the BE and its member schools played a large role in destroying itself. It did nothing to make itself more attractive to its most valuable FB members. The FB schools bowed to the wishes of the BB-centric leadership and the BB schools over and over again based on a quaint idea that what started the conference remained ideal 25 years later. When Miami and VT left, the FB schools had the right idea but let the BB leadership move them away from the right solution. Whatever money was being left on the table 10 years ago if the schools split is minor in comparison to the money being lost now.

I'm referring to the ACC's argument that it's been damaged by B1G poaching Maryland.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
424
Reaction Score
148
Problem with that analysis is that they weren't destroyed. In fact, and argument could be made that they are actually better off with Louisville and Notre Dame. They certainly had a few uncomfortable days, but that was about all. But that would have been the case even if Maryland ponied up the $50 million. This case has all the earmarks of one to be settled at some point probably with a smaller payment and maybe a couple of football games.


Well, time hasn't stopped moving, so saying "the ACC wasn't destroyed" isn't completely a moot point. If MD were to defeat the exit fee, and the SEC suddenly wanted Florida State and Clemson, they would be a world of trouble, sure to earn less than they are now under their TV contracts. So you can't just brush that off so easily.

Louisville may have better major sports than Maryland - at least right now - but that doesn't mean that losing the Maryland market, and having a potential competitor open up shop in the middle of your territory isn't going to cause further harm to the ACC brand.

And then with regard to Notre Dame, you can argue that their presence destabilizes the ACC, just like it did in the Big East. If the ACC has competent lawyers, which I presume they do, then they have lots of different ways to validate and justify the exit fee.

The ACC isn't truly "safe" until (a) the MD suit is decided, (b) the ACC Network gets launched, and (c) Notre Dame joins a conference.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
424
Reaction Score
148
At some point, people need to look and acknowledge that the BE and its member schools played a large role in destroying itself. It did nothing to make itself more attractive to its most valuable FB members. The FB schools bowed to the wishes of the BB-centric leadership and the BB schools over and over again based on a quaint idea that what started the conference remained ideal 25 years later. When Miami and VT left, the FB schools had the right idea but let the BB leadership move them away from the right solution. Whatever money was being left on the table 10 years ago if the schools split is minor in comparison to the money being lost now.


Surprisingly, a big part of what did in the Big East was being cheap and acting small time, even into the 2000's. I still am dumbfounded that the Big East did not exist as a legal entity (i.e. it was never incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation) until after the 2003 raid. The by-laws were not especially rigorous, and they never really "lawyered up". That lack of legal advice led them to getting short-changed in contract negotiations, and left them open to the raids, just as much as anything else. And maybe if they spent a little more money on lawyers and were a little more forceful with Notre Dame, ND wouldn't have taken their bowl games so often, and for so little in return.
 

pj

Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
8,597
Reaction Score
24,930
The ACC isn't truly "safe" until (a) the MD suit is decided, (b) the ACC Network gets launched, and (c) Notre Dame joins a conference.

(b) and (c) are at least 15 years away. At least you'll have (a).
 

CL82

2023 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Champions
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
56,515
Reaction Score
206,309
Surprisingly, a big part of what did in the Big East was being cheap and acting small time, even into the 2000's. I still am dumbfounded that the Big East did not exist as a legal entity (i.e. it was never incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation) until after the 2003 raid. The by-laws were not especially rigorous, and they never really "lawyered up". That lack of legal advice led them to getting short-changed in contract negotiations, and left them open to the raids, just as much as anything else. And maybe if they spent a little more money on lawyers and were a little more forceful with Notre Dame, ND wouldn't have taken their bowl games so often, and for so little in return.
Why do you care Matt, it's not like they took them from Syracuse.
 
U

UConn9604

Surprisingly, a big part of what did in the Big East was being cheap and acting small time, even into the 2000's. I still am dumbfounded that the Big East did not exist as a legal entity (i.e. it was never incorporated as a not-for-profit corporation) until after the 2003 raid. The by-laws were not especially rigorous, and they never really "lawyered up". That lack of legal advice led them to getting short-changed in contract negotiations, and left them open to the raids, just as much as anything else. And maybe if they spent a little more money on lawyers and were a little more forceful with Notre Dame, ND wouldn't have taken their bowl games so often, and for so little in return.

The Big East was incorporated as a non-profit in the District of Columbia in 1979.

As for whether the league was strong or weak, or whether the league's policies were smart or dumb, people like Jake Crouthamel were involved in the league on both the non-football and football sides from the very outset. If the league failed, it was because the people in charge (like Crouthamel et al.) put it in the position to do so.
 

The Funster

What?
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,949
Reaction Score
8,655
The BE was a collective failure, IMO. Tranghese and Marinatto tried to keep Gavitt's dream alive and they failed miserably. In addition, the schools looked past possible solutions and the BE was willingly poached by the ACC. I would have liked to have the core schools stick together and to have found a solution that would have worked for everyone. I think it could have been done. Instead there was a lot of back room dealing and yeah I know Swofford played a big part in that but still some administrators could have been a little more forthright.

That being said, I don't begrudge anyone leaving. If the ship was going to sink I would expect schools to leave. The two areas I have problems with are: 1) a school blocking or steering a conference to take another school that they were affiliated with and 2) others fans wishing ill on UConn's plight. Any school, especially BC, who didn't want UConn to come because they were afraid of competition should be embarrased. How can BC be concerned about protecting their turf when one of the greatest rivalries in college sports are next door neighbors? If the rumors are true that Cuse quietly lobbied against UConn then shame on them. They just show themselves to be spineless, weak willed, scaredy-cats if its true. And for the Cuse and BC fans who laugh at our plight...go ahead and laugh. BC has fallen into a chasm because they have no local rival. If BC thinks that Pitt and Cuse will fill that role, good luck with that. Because the NYC pipeline for Pitt hoops is drying up, Cuse is sitting on a powderkeg investigation and both their football programs have been moribund at best.

This whole CR thing has been an mistake and their have been very few winners. Schools are hookers and conferences are pimps. Take the money, spread your legs and shut up, bitch.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
1,228
Reaction Score
368
One has to appreciate the irony of the ACC's arguments. Apparently, those arguments apply only when poached and not when poaching.

I'm not aware of the ACC ever not respecting the By-Laws of the Big East Conference. I think the exit fees of the Big East have been paid by everyone except Boise State, who has sued not to pay it in their case. But that doesn't involve the ACC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
189
Guests online
3,086
Total visitors
3,275

Forum statistics

Threads
155,802
Messages
4,032,088
Members
9,865
Latest member
Sad Tiger


Top Bottom