(11-15-2023 12:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect that what will end up happening is the departing 10 will get their full 2023-2024 distributions, and nothing else.

Less the pre-August 2024 outstanding debts (including certain staff changes, made soon), and a fund put in escrow for as-of-yet undetermined liabilities.

They should get full distribution minus debts. Debts should be determined by a court to make sure these arelegit debts/costs and not made up. As far as conference assets? All assets should be put in escrow. If the conference continues to operate as a conference for 2 years, then it's theirs to keep. If the conference does not operate as a conference and dissolves, then it is divided up. That simple.

(11-15-2023 02:56 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:54 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect that what will end up happening is the departing 10 will get their full 2023-2024 distributions, and nothing else.

And that IMO will be fair.

^^^
This.

It would be "punitive" IMO and outrageous if schools playing in a conference were not given the distributions for the year 23-24 in the league--UNLESS specifically stated in the by-laws as a condition of their departure.

Yes. Because IIRC, unlike the Big 12, which had bylaws that said that a departing team forfeits their last year or two of distributions as an exit fee, bylaws the schools had agreed to, the PAC has no such bylaws. So it would be wrong for the PAC2 to try and use their newly-won power to implement something like this, whether in the name of "rebuilding the conference" or whatever.

Not that the PAC2 have ever contemplated doing that, I have no idea if they have or not. But if.

(11-15-2023 07:29 AM)otown Wrote:  They should get full distribution minus debts. Debts should be determined by a court to make sure these arelegit debts/costs and not made up. As far as conference assets? All assets should be put in escrow. If the conference continues to operate as a conference for 2 years, then it's theirs to keep. If the conference does not operate as a conference and dissolves, then it is divided up. That simple.

About the debts part, IMO the debts that are related to yearly distributions, like that money owed Comcast for the media rights overpayments, should be deducted from the 2023-2024 distributions. IIRC that was the plan all along.

But not long-term debts that come due after August 2024. IMO, the PAC2 inherit everything that comes due after August 1, 2024 - all the revenues, such as NCAA tournament credits, but also all the debts.

So the entirety of long-term debts, like say a lease on office space payable after August 2024, shouldn't be deducted from D10 2023-2024 distributions. Only the lease payments that are to be made during 2023-2024 should be.

If the accounting shows that PAC long-run liabilities actually exceed long-run assets, and the PAC2 don't want to be on the sole hook for that, the PAC2 can presumably vote to dissolve the conference right now, while the D10 are still members, so that they can all share in paying off those debts.

But IMO it can't be a "cake and eat it too" situation where the PAC2 can use this year's revenue to pay off all the long-term (post-August 2024) debt, but then still claim the long-term revenue.

(11-15-2023 02:56 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:54 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect that what will end up happening is the departing 10 will get their full 2023-2024 distributions, and nothing else.

And that IMO will be fair.

^^^
This.

It would be "punitive" IMO and outrageous if schools playing in a conference were not given the distributions for the year 23-24 in the league--UNLESS specifically stated in the by-laws as a condition of their departure.

Why could the Conference's bylaws not be changed by a unanimous vote of the voting members? Are these things set in stone forever? Even the US Constitution can be amended with the support of 3/4 of the States. What's "punitive and outrageous" about taking some money from the 23-24 distributions to replenish the emergency fund, cover future liabilities, and help rebuild the Conference? To me, that's more "common sense".

"Punitive and outrageous" would be more like: WOSU take control of Conference on a Tuesday, by Weds morning at 8 am they've changed the bylaws and voted to distribute all 23-24 money to themselves, dissolved the conference and given themselves all of those assets, too.

(11-15-2023 04:42 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-14-2023 04:24 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-14-2023 03:14 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-14-2023 01:26 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-14-2023 01:23 PM)solohawks Wrote:  My gut is the PAC 2 still wanna try to put together a best of the rest conference. I just don't see anyone but them being interested in that.

Can’t blame ‘em. If I was in their shoes that would be my objective too. It really comes down to whether they can gain enough leverage to shatter the MWC’s solidarity. It’s doable, but it will take cash… a lot of cash.

Same. And any reasonable person would conclude that the PAC as a name would still hold a lot of value. Now that's just my opinion since the past sixteen months or so have show that it's not as valuable as, say, the Big XII or the ACC.

Not valuable yet 4 teams ended up in the B1G. After Texas and OU left the Big XII, nobody came looking to take any of the leftover schools.

Right. Unfortunately, the PAC couldn't get a media deal done together after the L.A. schools announced they were leaving for the B1G. Would they have done so had the L.A. schools simply stayed? Certainly. Would it have been as lucrative as the one the Big XII got if not more? Perhaps, but we'll never know.

The value is there for the left behind 8, just as the value is there for the 4c, but it's much easier to see that value in the 4c. The're all AAU Flagships or co-Flagships. The only one of the 4c that's in a small state is fiercely competitive and nationally relevant every year on the field, and their state is one of the fastest-growing in the country. Contrast those with the 8 left behind schools, only 1 of whom is Nationally relevant on a consistent basis, and their area of strength is in the wrong sport. However, their regional strength just happens to be in a region that's nuts about football, they have some solid rivalries amongst themselves, and they picked 4 great additions as emergency replacements when OUT left. The Conference that was chock-full of the AAU Flagships had the advantage clearly, and they were offered the $30m first, but the actual TV ratings of the smaller, regional schools were comparable, and they could just as easily form the basis of the new Conference 4 as the old Pac could have. ie, not the first choice, but also not a bad fallback option.

(11-15-2023 07:22 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect that what will end up happening is the departing 10 will get their full 2023-2024 distributions, and nothing else.

Less the pre-August 2024 outstanding debts (including certain staff changes, made soon), and a fund put in escrow for as-of-yet undetermined liabilities.

There is some amount the conference has withheld for potential liabilities and operating funds. At the time of the last tax return I believe the number was $32 million. No idea what it is now. Nobody else does either! The presidents and ADs couldn't get that information out of the conference office this summer!

The Holiday bowl lawsuit and the athlete lawsuit are uncertain amounts.

(11-15-2023 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 02:56 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:54 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect that what will end up happening is the departing 10 will get their full 2023-2024 distributions, and nothing else.

And that IMO will be fair.

^^^
This.

It would be "punitive" IMO and outrageous if schools playing in a conference were not given the distributions for the year 23-24 in the league--UNLESS specifically stated in the by-laws as a condition of their departure.

Yes. Because IIRC, unlike the Big 12, which had bylaws that said that a departing team forfeits their last year or two of distributions as an exit fee, bylaws the schools had agreed to, the PAC has no such bylaws. So it would be wrong for the PAC2 to try and use their newly-won power to implement something like this, whether in the name of "rebuilding the conference" or whatever.

Not that the PAC2 have ever contemplated doing that, I have no idea if they have or not. But if.

Their lawyers have talked about that. They never did before this lawsuit. UW's legal team makes it sound like that is the only issue. But who knows what they are talking about behind closed doors.

Net assets can be broken down into:
1 Current year media revenue
2 Other current year revenue
3 Future basketball credits
4 Reserve funds
5 Pac 12 name
6 Pac 12 network & its assets
7 Other Pac 12 assets (furniture & fixtures, etc.)
8 Lawsuit liabilities
9 Other liabilities (Comcast, leases, etc.)

1, 3 and 8 are probably the big numbers.

(11-15-2023 01:03 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 07:22 AM)PlayBall! Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect that what will end up happening is the departing 10 will get their full 2023-2024 distributions, and nothing else.

Less the pre-August 2024 outstanding debts (including certain staff changes, made soon), and a fund put in escrow for as-of-yet undetermined liabilities.

There is some amount the conference has withheld for potential liabilities and operating funds. At the time of the last tax return I believe the number was $32 million. No idea what it is now. Nobody else does either! The presidents and ADs couldn't get that information out of the conference office this summer!

The Holiday bowl lawsuit and the athlete lawsuit are uncertain amounts.

Yet more evidence that Kliavkoff is literally a snake. I'm not ready to brand him an outright criminal, but I also wouldn't rule it out at this point.

(11-15-2023 08:42 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 07:29 AM)otown Wrote:  They should get full distribution minus debts. Debts should be determined by a court to make sure these arelegit debts/costs and not made up. As far as conference assets? All assets should be put in escrow. If the conference continues to operate as a conference for 2 years, then it's theirs to keep. If the conference does not operate as a conference and dissolves, then it is divided up. That simple.

About the debts part, IMO the debts that are related to yearly distributions, like that money owed Comcast for the media rights overpayments, should be deducted from the 2023-2024 distributions. IIRC that was the plan all along.

But not long-term debts that come due after August 2024. IMO, the PAC2 inherit everything that comes due after August 1, 2024 - all the revenues, such as NCAA tournament credits, but also all the debts.

So the entirety of long-term debts, like say a lease on office space payable after August 2024, shouldn't be deducted from D10 2023-2024 distributions. Only the lease payments that are to be made during 2023-2024 should be.

If the accounting shows that PAC long-run liabilities actually exceed long-run assets, and the PAC2 don't want to be on the sole hook for that, the PAC2 can presumably vote to dissolve the conference right now, while the D10 are still members, so that they can all share in paying off those debts.

But IMO it can't be a "cake and eat it too" situation where the PAC2 can use this year's revenue to pay off all the long-term (post-August 2024) debt, but then still claim the long-term revenue.

For any pending litigation they can just keep money in reserve. Insurance companies do this any time a claim is filed. It goes down as a loss in the customer's account even if they were to win in court later on. We know there are pending lawsuits when the conference and its current members are parties including the suit by the Holiday Bowl for damages incurred when UCLA canceled at the last minute.

(11-15-2023 10:24 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 04:42 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-14-2023 04:24 PM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(11-14-2023 03:14 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(11-14-2023 01:26 PM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  Can’t blame ‘em. If I was in their shoes that would be my objective too. It really comes down to whether they can gain enough leverage to shatter the MWC’s solidarity. It’s doable, but it will take cash… a lot of cash.

Same. And any reasonable person would conclude that the PAC as a name would still hold a lot of value. Now that's just my opinion since the past sixteen months or so have show that it's not as valuable as, say, the Big XII or the ACC.

Not valuable yet 4 teams ended up in the B1G. After Texas and OU left the Big XII, nobody came looking to take any of the leftover schools.

Right. Unfortunately, the PAC couldn't get a media deal done together after the L.A. schools announced they were leaving for the B1G. Would they have done so had the L.A. schools simply stayed? Certainly. Would it have been as lucrative as the one the Big XII got if not more? Perhaps, but we'll never know.

The value is there for the left behind 8, just as the value is there for the 4c, but it's much easier to see that value in the 4c. The're all AAU Flagships or co-Flagships. The only one of the 4c that's in a small state is fiercely competitive and nationally relevant every year on the field, and their state is one of the fastest-growing in the country. Contrast those with the 8 left behind schools, only 1 of whom is Nationally relevant on a consistent basis, and their area of strength is in the wrong sport. However, their regional strength just happens to be in a region that's nuts about football, they have some solid rivalries amongst themselves, and they picked 4 great additions as emergency replacements when OUT left. The Conference that was chock-full of the AAU Flagships had the advantage clearly, and they were offered the $30m first, but the actual TV ratings of the smaller, regional schools were comparable, and they could just as easily form the basis of the new Conference 4 as the old Pac could have. ie, not the first choice, but also not a bad fallback option.

Absolutely. (Also, I was tired and wanted someone else to explain it so thanks.)

(11-15-2023 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 02:56 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:54 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect that what will end up happening is the departing 10 will get their full 2023-2024 distributions, and nothing else.

And that IMO will be fair.

^^^
This.

It would be "punitive" IMO and outrageous if schools playing in a conference were not given the distributions for the year 23-24 in the league--UNLESS specifically stated in the by-laws as a condition of their departure.

Yes. Because IIRC, unlike the Big 12, which had bylaws that said that a departing team forfeits their last year or two of distributions as an exit fee, bylaws the schools had agreed to, the PAC has no such bylaws. So it would be wrong for the PAC2 to try and use their newly-won power to implement something like this, whether in the name of "rebuilding the conference" or whatever.

Not that the PAC2 have ever contemplated doing that, I have no idea if they have or not. But if.

That’s actually part of the dispute. The same section of the Pac-12 bylaws that deals with removing voting rights of those that gave notice of departure prior to 8/1/2024 were also written in a way where it could be interpreted that the league could withhold revenue distributions from departing members.

This is part of the whole dilemma: the 9 schools took away the voting rights of USC, UCLA, and Colorado, but at least with USC/UCLA didn’t enforce the revenue withholding provision. (CU hadn’t been gone long enough for the revenue withholding issue to come into play.) That’s why the 10 departing schools likely have a chill going down their spines right now. If the courts decide that those schools are wrong on how to interpret the voting rights portion of the by-laws, then that same section of the by-laws could also allow WSU/OSU to withhold revenue (and that’s without having to change a thing about the existing by-laws).

Karma came to the departing 10 the PAC 2 should sue them for financially harming them.

(11-15-2023 10:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 02:56 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:54 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect that what will end up happening is the departing 10 will get their full 2023-2024 distributions, and nothing else.

And that IMO will be fair.

^^^
This.

It would be "punitive" IMO and outrageous if schools playing in a conference were not given the distributions for the year 23-24 in the league--UNLESS specifically stated in the by-laws as a condition of their departure.

Yes. Because IIRC, unlike the Big 12, which had bylaws that said that a departing team forfeits their last year or two of distributions as an exit fee, bylaws the schools had agreed to, the PAC has no such bylaws. So it would be wrong for the PAC2 to try and use their newly-won power to implement something like this, whether in the name of "rebuilding the conference" or whatever.

Not that the PAC2 have ever contemplated doing that, I have no idea if they have or not. But if.

That’s actually part of the dispute. The same section of the Pac-12 bylaws that deals with removing voting rights of those that gave notice of departure prior to 8/1/2024 were also written in a way where it could be interpreted that the league could withhold revenue distributions from departing members.

This is part of the whole dilemma: the 9 schools took away the voting rights of USC, UCLA, and Colorado, but at least with USC/UCLA didn’t enforce the revenue withholding provision. (CU hadn’t been gone long enough for the revenue withholding issue to come into play.) That’s why the 10 departing schools likely have a chill going down their spines right now. If the courts decide that those schools are wrong on how to interpret the voting rights portion of the by-laws, then that same section of the by-laws could also allow WSU/OSU to withhold revenue (and that’s without having to change a thing about the existing by-laws).

That section is very contradictory with what all the conference member's understanding was. Its really poorly written.

(11-15-2023 10:27 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 10:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 08:35 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 02:56 AM)TOPSTRAIGHT Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:54 AM)HawaiiMongoose Wrote:  ^^^
This.

It would be "punitive" IMO and outrageous if schools playing in a conference were not given the distributions for the year 23-24 in the league--UNLESS specifically stated in the by-laws as a condition of their departure.

Yes. Because IIRC, unlike the Big 12, which had bylaws that said that a departing team forfeits their last year or two of distributions as an exit fee, bylaws the schools had agreed to, the PAC has no such bylaws. So it would be wrong for the PAC2 to try and use their newly-won power to implement something like this, whether in the name of "rebuilding the conference" or whatever.

Not that the PAC2 have ever contemplated doing that, I have no idea if they have or not. But if.

That’s actually part of the dispute. The same section of the Pac-12 bylaws that deals with removing voting rights of those that gave notice of departure prior to 8/1/2024 were also written in a way where it could be interpreted that the league could withhold revenue distributions from departing members.

This is part of the whole dilemma: the 9 schools took away the voting rights of USC, UCLA, and Colorado, but at least with USC/UCLA didn’t enforce the revenue withholding provision. (CU hadn’t been gone long enough for the revenue withholding issue to come into play.) That’s why the 10 departing schools likely have a chill going down their spines right now. If the courts decide that those schools are wrong on how to interpret the voting rights portion of the by-laws, then that same section of the by-laws could also allow WSU/OSU to withhold revenue (and that’s without having to change a thing about the existing by-laws).

That section is very contradictory with what all the conference member's understanding was. Its really poorly written.

Oh yeah - it’s pretty amazing how badly written it was.

I think the *intent* was that a school lost its voting rights upon giving notice that it was leaving the conference, but wouldn’t give up revenue unless it violated the GOR in leaving prior to 8/1/2024. That’s how all of the schools approached it. It’s not really written that way, though.

The Big 12 by-laws, in contrast, were really clear and even covered all of the message board genius proposals to try to get around the GOR or dissolving a league on the way out the door. I guess a league having been screwed with defections and a healthy (and warranted) fear that it would get screwed again made all of the lawyers really focused on not leaving any ambiguities or loopholes that could be exposed with shenanigans by departing members.

Seeing that the appeals court has issued a stay -- thus keeping the Sept. ("all 12 must agree") order in place until that court can rule.

(11-16-2023 04:53 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  Seeing that the appeals court has issued a stay -- thus keeping the Sept. ("all 12 must agree") order in place until that court can rule.

Yep. Back to status quo, which isn’t great for OSU and WSU.

(11-15-2023 12:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect that what will end up happening is the departing 10 will get their full 2023-2024 distributions, and nothing else.

And that IMO will be fair.

I think the Washington Supreme Court will give the departing ten half of their 2023-2024 distributions, so long as OSU & WSU pledge to use the other half to re-stock the Pac 12, which is what I suspect that is what they will do.

(11-17-2023 02:06 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  

(11-15-2023 12:49 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I suspect that what will end up happening is the departing 10 will get their full 2023-2024 distributions, and nothing else.

And that IMO will be fair.

I think the Washington Supreme Court will give the departing ten half of their 2023-2024 distributions, so long as OSU & WSU pledge to use the other half to re-stock the Pac 12, which is what I suspect that is what they will do.

Absolutely no chance that happens. It’s all or none.

No. To pay off the pre-8/2024 conference debts and other liabilities (get out of bad leases, staffing, etc.), and to establish a court-overseen untouchable fund. Then the net 2023 media earnings distributed to all 12.