(01-14-2014 02:43 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 11:29 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 11:10 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I never expected it to happen, but this probably puts the nail in the coffin for the ACC homers who expected the 50M exit fee to be paid in full.

I put the chances of a mutual walk-away with Maryland never receiving the withheld funds from this season as the most likely outcome at this point.

That's the whole point of this counterclaim. Maryland doesn't seriously believe that it's going to receive $157 million, just as the ACC never seriously believed that it was going to receive the full $50 million exit fee (or at least they should have never believed that). This is about Maryland having leverage in saying that the ACC isn't just going to have a clear path to receive all of the exit fees, so they force the ACC back to the negotiating table.

As with every single other realignment-related lawsuit, no one involved (the schools, conferences, TV networks) want anything to do with these cases going to discovery where more info gets made public. Every school that has left a conference has publicly claimed that they owe nothing. Every conference that has had a school leave has publicly claimed that they owe everything. No one has a clear moral argument on either side - fans ultimately just pick the side that benefits their favorite school the most (see the multitude of schools that are on one side of litigation one year and then the subject of the same type of litigation the next year in just this round of realignment). At the end of the day, it's in the best interests of everyone to meet in the middle and move on.

I have been saying $27 million paid by Maryland for months now.

This is just a tactical non-event in my mind.

Crap like this happens in lots of lawsuits, run of the mill legal maneuvering here. It down 't change my opinion/ prediction.

Have you read Maryland's Amended Answer and Counterclaims? I'm not so sure this is run of the mill stuff.

University of Maryland

(01-14-2014 02:39 PM)WakeForestRanger Wrote:  "Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave."

For those that keep insisting that Wake Forest is irrelevant in conference realignment, you do not understand the power Wake has in the internal politics of the ACC.

Yeah, but I'm not sure being the Providence College of the ACC is the good kind of relevance...

100+ posts, and no LP4 on why this is the worst counter claim in the history of North Carolina???

Maryland's best argument is that the increased exit fee was introduced without the proper protocol (review time, etc.) and implemented with unusual expediency (effective immediately as compared to most legislation which takes effect the next fiscal year). However, the counter to that argument is that Maryland did not object to the legislation other than to vote against its passage. It seems like an argument of convenience for Maryland.

(01-14-2014 03:16 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Maryland's best argument is that the increased exit fee was introduced without the proper protocol (review time, etc.) and implemented with unusual expediency (effective immediately as compared to most legislation which takes effect the next fiscal year). However, the counter to that argument is that Maryland did not object to the legislation other than to vote against its passage. It seems like an argument of convenience for Maryland.

I think they publically complained about it and then left as soon as they could, within a few months. Going from $20 million to $52 million is a pretty significant change for going into effect immediately. If this actually does go to court, it will all hinge on law and precedents and how the contract is written, but common sense says it can't stand (common sense does not determine who wins). Its a material change to a contract without agreement, consideration or time to withdraw. Interesting that the ACC and Maryland make opposite arguments on withholding funds. The ACC starting withholding funds as soon as Maryland announced they were leaving, but before formal notice, which wasn't given until June 30th. There Maryland wants to stick with formality and the ACC wants common sense.

How does this all end?
Easy. ACC reels under the massive counter suit against it. In a move of desperation and fearing conference bankruptcy, it gives up Virginia and Virginia Tech to the Big Ten to avoid a payout. The Big Ten adds four schools in the west and forms a powerhouse four pod, twenty team league. Thanks, ACC!

(01-14-2014 03:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 03:16 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Maryland's best argument is that the increased exit fee was introduced without the proper protocol (review time, etc.) and implemented with unusual expediency (effective immediately as compared to most legislation which takes effect the next fiscal year). However, the counter to that argument is that Maryland did not object to the legislation other than to vote against its passage. It seems like an argument of convenience for Maryland.

I think they publically complained about it and then left as soon as they could, within a few months. Going from $20 million to $52 million is a pretty significant change for going into effect immediately. If this actually does go to court, it will all hinge on law and precedents and how the contract is written, but common sense says it can't stand (common sense does not determine who wins). Its a material change to a contract without agreement, consideration or time to withdraw. Interesting that the ACC and Maryland make opposite arguments on withholding funds. The ACC starting withholding funds as soon as Maryland announced they were leaving, but before formal notice, which wasn't given until June 30th. There Maryland wants to stick with formality and the ACC wants common sense.

I see both sides as valid. The ACC withholds funds because Maryland makes statements about withdrawing prior to submitting formal notice and is therefore in breach of the bylaws. But Maryland has a point about the legislation being introduced and enacted without the proper protocol - but that has usually not resulted in the voiding of an action by an entity - especially if there's no formal objection other than a negative vote.

The bottom line is that neither party is clearly right here. Both sides have made mistakes in proper protocol. The question for the court is not an easy one - if it gets that far. I agree with most on here that a settlement is the outcome.

(01-14-2014 03:39 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 03:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 03:16 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Maryland's best argument is that the increased exit fee was introduced without the proper protocol (review time, etc.) and implemented with unusual expediency (effective immediately as compared to most legislation which takes effect the next fiscal year). However, the counter to that argument is that Maryland did not object to the legislation other than to vote against its passage. It seems like an argument of convenience for Maryland.

I think they publically complained about it and then left as soon as they could, within a few months. Going from $20 million to $52 million is a pretty significant change for going into effect immediately. If this actually does go to court, it will all hinge on law and precedents and how the contract is written, but common sense says it can't stand (common sense does not determine who wins). Its a material change to a contract without agreement, consideration or time to withdraw. Interesting that the ACC and Maryland make opposite arguments on withholding funds. The ACC starting withholding funds as soon as Maryland announced they were leaving, but before formal notice, which wasn't given until June 30th. There Maryland wants to stick with formality and the ACC wants common sense.

I see both sides as valid. The ACC withholds funds because Maryland makes statements about withdrawing prior to submitting formal notice and is therefore in breach of the bylaws. But Maryland has a point about the legislation being introduced and enacted without the proper protocol - but that has usually not resulted in the voiding of an action by an entity - especially if there's no formal objection other than a negative vote.

The bottom line is that neither party is clearly right here. Both sides have made mistakes in proper protocol. The question for the court is not an easy one - if it gets that far. I agree with most on here that a settlement is the outcome.

Your comment is part of the reason a settlement is likely. Its a lot to put at risk on a win/lose verdict. The outcome isn't certain for either side. And the verdict may end up being somewhere in the middle anyway.

(01-14-2014 02:52 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  University of Maryland

For the life of me, I can't understand why any Louisville fan would feel anything other than gratitude to UMD for deciding to leave. Without us leaving, you're still stranded in a rotting AAC.

Maryland has to prove its claims. That's Maryland's biggest problem. They will never be able to prove the ACC violated it's own bylaws and rules. The politics of the case in MD is that the AG is running for Governor.

(01-14-2014 11:44 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  This lawsuit appears to confirm what LP4 has been saying all along, viz., that the ACC was in discussions with Penn State and that Loh was a B1G mole, outing the ACC's overtures to Penn State. Quite frankly I can't blame the ACC from banning Maryland from internal ACC business matters.

You got it.

Bottom line though this will never go to trial. not a snowballs chance in heck that it goes to trial. ACC and now especially ESPN want NOTHING to do with that at all.

(01-14-2014 01:54 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  I'm not a North Carolina attorney, but a big detail a lot of you are missing is that Maryland might be able to bring in third parties as additional defendants in a unfair trade practices case, not just depose them. Not just ESPN, but individuals who work for the ACC and the respective schools who participated in the acts alleged in the counterclaim.

Personal liability is a powerful motivator of settlement.

I'll leave it to a North Carolina attorney to discuss the merits and defenses of this, especially the issues of immunity.

If you think Maryland can win a case in NC then you don't know anything about the legal system in NC. MD is not going to win a case against UNC/Duke/WF in North Carolina.

(01-14-2014 03:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Bottom line though this will never go to trial. not a snowballs chance in heck that it goes to trial. ACC and now especially ESPN want NOTHING to do with that at all.

It might go to trial in NC. The ACC has less to lose than the B10 in full discovery.

In discovery this is what could come out:

1. Kirwin and Loh were B10 moles from the start and made the first contact with the B10 during the most recent round of expansion.

2. B10 was not that interested in MD and Rutgers until the ACC strikes the deal with ND making B10 livid.

3. In order to blow up the PSU move to the ACC, MD bolts to the B10 with the assurances of financial aid.

4. B10 attempts to tinker with UVa on the political level.

5. ACC folks continue to meet with PSU folks after MD's move - Pitt's Chancellor would not have been first contact at all as this communication would be revealed to have been ongoing for years. Just like the ACC's conversations with ND had been ongoing since 2003.

6. Discovery would then reveal who ND likes best - Purdue or Michigan State.

7. Best of all, discovery could likely reveal that ACC and B10 talked about getting rid of the Big East.

However, what's most likely is for MD's claims to be totally rejected out of hand in NC since the ACC has the right to suspend rules with a 3/4th vote of the members, Maryland had already bound itself to those rules and the ACC can most likely prove MD was notified of the discussion on the matter.

It's also a free country so any chancellor or president can talk to anyone else.

Didn't I tell you folks a long time ago that Wake Forest was very important to the ACC and held power far beyond it's apparent size and stature? Some of you didn't listen. Also unlike most of the B10 or State and UNC, WF is private and if you think you will get to a WF President, you are living on another planet.

(01-14-2014 04:00 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 03:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Bottom line though this will never go to trial. not a snowballs chance in heck that it goes to trial. ACC and now especially ESPN want NOTHING to do with that at all.

It might go to trial in NC. The ACC has less to lose than the B10 in full discovery.

You are totally delusional if you believe that. ACC has a ton to lose. And more importantly, ESPN has a LOT more to lose. It would be absolutely devastating to ESPN to go thru discovery. Hence it will never happen. ESPN would sooner give the ACC a 30 million dollar bonus than to go thru discovery.

(01-14-2014 03:16 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Maryland's best argument is that the increased exit fee was introduced without the proper protocol (review time, etc.) and implemented with unusual expediency (effective immediately as compared to most legislation which takes effect the next fiscal year). However, the counter to that argument is that Maryland did not object to the legislation other than to vote against its passage. It seems like an argument of convenience for Maryland.

I'm sure this isn't the first instance within the ACC where the rules of order was expedited or circumvented to ensure a favorable outcome quickly. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if the rules weren't followed to a T during the process of adding Pittsburgh and Syracuse.

(01-14-2014 03:57 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 01:54 PM)Lurker Above Wrote:  I'm not a North Carolina attorney, but a big detail a lot of you are missing is that Maryland might be able to bring in third parties as additional defendants in a unfair trade practices case, not just depose them. Not just ESPN, but individuals who work for the ACC and the respective schools who participated in the acts alleged in the counterclaim.

Personal liability is a powerful motivator of settlement.

I'll leave it to a North Carolina attorney to discuss the merits and defenses of this, especially the issues of immunity.

If you think Maryland can win a case in NC then you don't know anything about the legal system in NC. MD is not going to win a case against UNC/Duke/WF in North Carolina.

Don't bet the farm on that opinion. Yes, Judges are people, and even worse, often are politicians, but this is a high profile case. When the case gets a lot of publicity the Judge would be mindful of both public opinion and their reputation in the legal world as to their legal opinions. The latter is more important to most Judges, unless their zealots or ideologues. There are also appellate courts and the chance the case could be removed to federal court. Federal judges are appointed, not elected.

(01-14-2014 04:07 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 03:16 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Maryland's best argument is that the increased exit fee was introduced without the proper protocol (review time, etc.) and implemented with unusual expediency (effective immediately as compared to most legislation which takes effect the next fiscal year). However, the counter to that argument is that Maryland did not object to the legislation other than to vote against its passage. It seems like an argument of convenience for Maryland.

I'm sure this isn't the first instance within the ACC where the rules of order was expedited or circumvented to ensure a favorable outcome quickly. For instance, I wouldn't be surprised if the rules weren't followed to a T during the process of adding Pittsburgh and Syracuse.

Anything can be done in the ACC with a 3/4th vote. Any rule can be made effective when the body decides it's needed - all in the bylaws.

(01-14-2014 04:02 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 04:00 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(01-14-2014 03:54 PM)stever20 Wrote:  Bottom line though this will never go to trial. not a snowballs chance in heck that it goes to trial. ACC and now especially ESPN want NOTHING to do with that at all.

It might go to trial in NC. The ACC has less to lose than the B10 in full discovery.

You are totally delusional if you believe that. ACC has a ton to lose. And more importantly, ESPN has a LOT more to lose. It would be absolutely devastating to ESPN to go thru discovery. Hence it will never happen. ESPN would sooner give the ACC a 30 million dollar bonus than to go thru discovery.

You mean the ACC would extort money from ESPN to keep its mouth shut - the hell you say

(01-14-2014 11:10 AM)Hank Schrader Wrote:  I never expected it to happen, but this probably puts the nail in the coffin for the ACC homers who expected the 50M exit fee to be paid in full.

I put the chances of a mutual walk-away with Maryland never receiving the withheld funds from this season as the most likely outcome at this point.

I wouldn't bet the ranch on that if I were you.