(09-08-2023 02:40 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(09-08-2023 02:06 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(09-08-2023 01:40 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Interesting that Kliavkoff has scheduled a PAC board meeting, but he isn’t proactively communicating whether the 10 departing members still have votes. Financially, the interests of WSU and OSU are opposed to the 10 departing members (they can’t allow the PAC to be formally dissolved).

Seems like Kliavkoff is in over his head or just doesn’t care.

Looks like he knows his days are numbered (he's a goner whether that's Gloria being commish of a merged league or someone else if the conference somehow survives otherwise) and he's decided it's better for him personally to stay on the good side of the 10 that are leaving than to stand with WSU/OSU and the conference itself.

Seems cut and dried. Bylaws say if you're leaving you cease to be on the Board. I wonder if USCLA have been voting since they announced last year?

The article says that USCLA were stripped of voting rights immediately once they announced for the B10.

I missed that, thanks.

(09-08-2023 02:41 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(09-08-2023 02:34 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  What is the PAC bylaw defined process for "notice of withdrawal from the league".

My guess is it's not a press conference at School X but a formal notarized letter to the PAC commissioner's office.

Oh, I get it now. Your school isn't joining the MWC if there is no MWC to join. Got it. Your bias is now clear.

What bias? I have no dog in this fight.

I do however understand that a conference is just a corporation. Corporations have bylaws that govern how things are done. What do those say and have those bylaws been followed.

WasSU believes the bylaws are about to be broken and asked for injunctive relief from (I believe the wrong) court.

Have the "Outbound Eight" given "notice of withdrawal from the league" by the defined process? That defines what rights they do or do not have.

(09-08-2023 01:40 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Interesting that Kliavkoff has scheduled a PAC board meeting, but he isn’t proactively communicating whether the 10 departing members still have votes. Financially, the interests of WSU and OSU are opposed to the 10 departing members (they can’t allow the PAC to be formally dissolved).

Seems like Kliavkoff is in over his head or just doesn’t care.

Kliavkoff has cemented himself as the most cowardly, spineless commissioner in the history of the collegiate athletics. Kliavkoff is the Benedict Arnold of college sports.

(09-08-2023 01:37 PM)b2b Wrote:  I'd love for this to go to court and have Fox and ESPN exposed.

Its really just about Pac 12 governance, not outside TV contracts.

Its like a lot of divorce battles, all about who gets the money.

(09-08-2023 02:43 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  

(09-08-2023 02:26 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  The judge will take into account all the governing bylaws, including the NCAA bylaws.

It's a contract law case between the 12 shareholders of a corporation called "PAC-12". There's disagreement as to what the bylaws say so they went to court for a judge to decide.

The NCAA holds no stake (show me where the NCAA signed the contractual agreement) in that contract between the 12 parties. If the NCAA was a party to the contract they'd have to be reported on IRS Form 990.

Since it is incorporated in CA, there is probably a standard set of laws regarding corporate governance. I'm guessing that anytime 3/4 of shareholders want to call for changes to the Board or bylaws they'd be allowed to.

St Thomas was booted by the MIAC.
Idaho was booted by ... SunBelt?

(09-08-2023 02:51 PM)4x4hokies Wrote:  Since it is incorporated in CA, ...

Again, that's why I believe WasSU filing in a WA court was a mistake.
I'd expect the corporate contracts and bylaws say CA laws apply when there are disputes.

The NCAA role is not on the legal matters concerning assets, but rather on whether distributions should continue to be paid to the Pac-12 if it is not participating as a D1 conference. My educated guess is that they will decide a non-functioning conference is not entitled to the distributions for past years and that the revenue owed will go to the specific schools.

This is why Washington State will likely need to find 4 or 5 basketball schools to join immediately to have access to the distributions.

I am rather convinced that Oregon State will move on and not be part of such a scheme. But like the other Pac-12 schools they will fight for their share of the distributions for past performances, OSU having been a tournament team during that era (WSU was not).

(09-08-2023 02:19 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  Thamel article: " ... Pac-12 bylaws indicate that the presidents at Oregon State and Washington State -- the only members that have not given notification of withdrawal -- should constitute the league's board of directors."

Is the what-and-how of "notification of withdrawal" defined in the bylaws. That's what the judge will look for and if the judge finds the definition, see who has done it, if any.

If the judge finds no definition, oh my, ... the PAC had some crappy counsel when the bylaws were authored. In a no definition scenario the judge gets to make it up. That's probably why WasSU filed in WA (catch a fan or alumnus judge).

While it depends on what the by-laws say, its hard to imagine a Washington court having the authority to make the determination on how to interpret the by-laws on a California not for profit.

(09-08-2023 02:51 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  St Thomas was booted by the MIAC.
Idaho was booted by ... SunBelt?

Idaho & NM St were FB only affiliates (same as UMass in the MAC) and the Sun Belt only guaranteed a fixed term at which point membership would be reviewed.

St. Thomas is probably the only example but there was cause even if that cause seemed unfair (they were too successful and the rest of the conference wanted a chance to compete). It wasn't arbitrary and it certainly wasn't conspiring to remove them before a payday.

(09-08-2023 02:40 PM)HartfordHusky Wrote:  

(09-08-2023 02:06 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(09-08-2023 01:40 PM)Wahoowa84 Wrote:  Interesting that Kliavkoff has scheduled a PAC board meeting, but he isn’t proactively communicating whether the 10 departing members still have votes. Financially, the interests of WSU and OSU are opposed to the 10 departing members (they can’t allow the PAC to be formally dissolved).

Seems like Kliavkoff is in over his head or just doesn’t care.

Looks like he knows his days are numbered (he's a goner whether that's Gloria being commish of a merged league or someone else if the conference somehow survives otherwise) and he's decided it's better for him personally to stay on the good side of the 10 that are leaving than to stand with WSU/OSU and the conference itself.

Seems cut and dried. Bylaws say if you're leaving you cease to be on the Board. I wonder if USCLA have been voting since they announced last year?

The article says that USCLA were stripped of voting rights immediately once they announced for the B10.

That's the WSU/OSU interpretation, not necessarily the legal status.

(09-08-2023 02:59 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  The NCAA role is not on the legal matters concerning assets, but rather on whether distributions should continue to be paid to the Pac-12 if it is not participating as a D1 conference.

Legal: who gets to vote on assets

NCAA: is that a member conference by NCAA rules that is owed money

Two very different questions but you nailed it.

(09-08-2023 02:03 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  In June of 2022 after USC and UCLA gave notice that they were going to leave the conference wasn't there a new Pac-12 by-law created requiring 18 months notice. This would have applied to the other 10 members. If this is correct then the eight members leaving Washington State and Oregon State in the Pac-12 would have to provide notice at least 18 months prior to leaving. So they provided the required notice and can no longer vote. That's how I read this.

I don't think so? This is the first mention I've heard of it.

(09-08-2023 03:02 PM)Just Joe Wrote:  

(09-08-2023 02:51 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  St Thomas was booted by the MIAC.
Idaho was booted by ... SunBelt?

Idaho & NM St were FB only affiliates (same as UMass in the MAC) and the Sun Belt only guaranteed a fixed term at which point membership would be reviewed.

St. Thomas is probably the only example but there was cause even if that cause seemed unfair (they were too successful and the rest of the conference wanted a chance to compete). It wasn't arbitrary and it certainly wasn't conspiring to remove them before a payday.

In the UST case it woke them up to their potential.

I'm going to laugh if all the talk about OSU/WSU wanting to rebuild the PAC turns out to be just a big smokescreen. First, they go to Court and it is determined that they are the only ones with the power to vote. Next, they vote to dissolve the PAC and distribute the assets between themselves then both head to the MWC.

(09-08-2023 01:23 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  I think the NCAA bylaws supersede the Pac-12 bylaws. The Pac-12 ceases to be a conference until they get back to 8 members. ...

The NCAA by-laws are pretty clear that there is a two year grace period. They are also clear that the autobid is not covered by the grace period unless the conference has six basketball schools in its basketball competition.

Quote: You don't want Pac-12 to survive and then Comcast seek damages from the exiting members. Better to pay them back with the liquidation of assets.

Comcast is mostly going to be repaid by not distributing the 2023/24 P12N distribution. $4m/school for 12 schools just about covers a $50m debt.

(09-08-2023 03:01 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-08-2023 02:19 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  Thamel article: " ... Pac-12 bylaws indicate that the presidents at Oregon State and Washington State -- the only members that have not given notification of withdrawal -- should constitute the league's board of directors."

Is the what-and-how of "notification of withdrawal" defined in the bylaws. That's what the judge will look for and if the judge finds the definition, see who has done it, if any.

If the judge finds no definition, oh my, ... the PAC had some crappy counsel when the bylaws were authored. In a no definition scenario the judge gets to make it up. That's probably why WasSU filed in WA (catch a fan or alumnus judge).

While it depends on what the by-laws say, its hard to imagine a Washington court having the authority to make the determination on how to interpret the by-laws on a California not for profit.

Agree. The CA incorporated PAC-12 most likely has a "CA laws govern" clause in the contract between the 12.

(09-08-2023 03:06 PM)RobUCF Wrote:  I'm going to laugh if all the talk about OSU/WSU wanting to rebuild the PAC turns out to be just a big smokescreen. First, they go to Court and it is determined that they are the only ones with the power to vote. Next, they vote to dissolve the PAC and distribute the assets between themselves then both head to the MWC.

If they dissolve the PAC they are missing out on 2 years worth of CFP and Rose Bowl payouts.

They don't want the PAC to dissolve they want to be in control and squeeze out every last penny they can

(09-08-2023 03:07 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-08-2023 01:23 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  I think the NCAA bylaws supersede the Pac-12 bylaws. The Pac-12 ceases to be a conference until they get back to 8 members. ...

The NCAA by-laws are pretty clear that there is a two year grace period. They are also clear that the autobid is not covered by the grace period unless the conference has six basketball schools in its basketball competition.

Quote: You don't want Pac-12 to survive and then Comcast seek damages from the exiting members. Better to pay them back with the liquidation of assets.

Comcast is mostly going to be repaid by not distributing the 2023/24 P12N distribution. $4m/school for 12 schools just about covers a $50m debt.

Well I have also heard it is closer to $70 million than the initial $50 million estimate. On top of that, if it has been overpaid, maybe that $4 million is more than they actually owe.

The sticky issue is the lawsuit by the athletes.

(09-08-2023 02:19 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  Thamel article: " ... Pac-12 bylaws indicate that the presidents at Oregon State and Washington State -- the only members that have not given notification of withdrawal -- should constitute the league's board of directors."

Is the what-and-how of "notification of withdrawal" defined in the bylaws. That's what the judge will look for and if the judge finds the definition, see who has done it, if any.

If the judge finds no definition, oh my, ... the PAC had some crappy counsel when the bylaws were authored. In a no definition scenario the judge gets to make it up. That's probably why WasSU filed in WA (catch a fan or alumnus judge).

I think you'd call it a no definition scenario. Now, IANAL, but I don't think that, without black-letter text to the contrary, a lot of judges would look at a press release /. press conference announcing a conference change and say "there's no Notification of Withdrawal here."