|
Post by tomclen on Dec 14, 2022 9:43:56 GMT -5
Then the question is about the future employment of UCLAs leadership. The regents are going to have to tank a chunk out of someones backside or they were just spinning their wheels for 5 months. Spinning their wheels for 5 months is not unprecedented. I don't live in California, but I'd prefer to have a Board of Regents spend a few months examining this deal rather than some AD and/or college president make such an important decision without more input from a wide range of stakeholders. This is not a case where an AD ordered a new brand of cleaning supplies. There was a classic case here in Washington where UW worked out a closed-door deal to purchase a highly successful public radio station from a private university without any public input. The deal blew up spectacularly in the faces of both schools. Too bad there wasn't more oversight of USC during Donna-gate.
|
|
|
Post by vbcoltrane on Dec 14, 2022 9:48:53 GMT -5
Backing out now would create a host of other problems for the Regents, legally and financially. I see them reluctantly allowing it to go forward, rescinding or modifying the delegation authority and recommending some type of assistance to Cal, not necessarily from UCLA. Yeah, there's definitely a "we have to do this even if we really don't want to" vibe about the whole situation - for multiple reasons = legal, financial, as you say.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 14, 2022 9:56:59 GMT -5
Spinning their wheels for 5 months is not unprecedented. I don't live in California, but I'd prefer to have a Board of Regents spend a few months examining this deal rather than some AD and/or college president make such an important decision without more input from a wide range of stakeholders. This is not a case where an AD ordered a new brand of cleaning supplies. There was a classic case here in Washington where UW worked out a closed-door deal to purchase a highly successful public radio station from a private university without any public input. The deal blew up spectacularly in the faces of both schools. Too bad there wasn't more oversight of USC during Donna-gate. Undoubtedly, the parties kept it quiet/secret intentionally. But I have no doubt the Chancellor believed he had the authority to make the decision. It was a written policy passed in 1994. The one thing that has not been reported was whether the UCLA Chancellor ever informed his boss, the President of the UC (and an ex-officio member of the Regents) prior to the announcement. I have not seen the UC President quoted a single time on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 14, 2022 19:20:40 GMT -5
The UC Regents have approved UCLA’s move to the B1G, with caveats of mitigating travel and addressing athlete well being and without any financial requirements/ penalties. ** www.latimes.com/sports/ucla/story/2022-12-14/uc-regents-finally-bless-ucla-move-to-the-big-ten** Subsequent to this vote, an amendment was proposed to establish a "Berkeley" tax that would provide btwen $2-10 million as subsidy to the Cal campus for revenues lost. That is pending Regent approval
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Dec 14, 2022 19:23:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 14, 2022 19:31:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 14, 2022 19:35:02 GMT -5
Not really. The regents never agreed to the deal in the first place. They wouldn't be "backing out" of it. If UCLA made a deal they didn't have the authority to make, that's not the regents' problem. Now I'm not predicting the answer will be no. I suspect they will allow the deal. But I don't think they have any legal or financial obligations here. It's kind of the Big Ten's problem if they made a deal with someone who didn't have the authority to make a deal. But they did have the authority. It was delegated to the Chancellor. There is dispute about whether such authority actually was delegated. If it really had been delegated, then there would be no need for a vote. However, news reports are that (despite a majority of the feedback from UCLA athletes being opposed to the deal), the Regents have decided it can go forward.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 14, 2022 19:41:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gr8lakes on Dec 14, 2022 19:43:32 GMT -5
So who voted no?
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Dec 14, 2022 19:44:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by redcard on Dec 14, 2022 19:46:40 GMT -5
Jesus, how bad does UCLA treat their athletes?? Nutritious meals, Nutritionists, Mental health, academic support etc…isn’t that pretty standard at most P5 programs?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 14, 2022 19:52:27 GMT -5
But they did have the authority. It was delegated to the Chancellor. There is dispute about whether such authority actually was delegated. If it really had been delegated, then there would be no need for a vote. However, news reports are that (despite a majority of the feedback from UCLA athletes being opposed to the deal), the Regents have decided it can go forward. There was no “need” for a vote. They didn’t have to vote in order for the move to proceed because the authority was already delegated, and it was therefore a valid contract. The Regents chose to weigh in. The legal issue facing them was that if they blocked the move—which they could do—they would have breached a legal contract, and would have assumed a risk of potential liability from the other parties that could have surpassed any financial benefit they might haven gotten from forcing UCLA to stay.
|
|
|
Post by volleyaudience on Dec 14, 2022 19:57:30 GMT -5
I don't live in California, but I'd prefer to have a Board of Regents spend a few months examining this deal rather than some AD and/or college president make such an important decision without more input from a wide range of stakeholders. This is not a case where an AD ordered a new brand of cleaning supplies. There was a classic case here in Washington where UW worked out a closed-door deal to purchase a highly successful public radio station from a private university without any public input. The deal blew up spectacularly in the faces of both schools. Too bad there wasn't more oversight of USC during Donna-gate. Undoubtedly, the parties kept it quiet/secret intentionally. But I have no doubt the Chancellor believed he had the authority to make the decision. It was a written policy passed in 1994. The one thing that has not been reported was whether the UCLA Chancellor ever informed his boss, the President of the UC (and an ex-officio member of the Regents) prior to the announcement. I have not seen the UC President quoted a single time on the subject. The Regents decided to not try to overturn the UCLA decision. Previously the Regents had delegated decision making to the university. When asked to review the school 's decision, the Regent's attorney reported that while the Regents did deligate decision making, he suggested the Regents could argue they delegated decision making, but they did not relinquish it. Quite an interesting approach.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 14, 2022 19:57:40 GMT -5
It appears that reporting was added to the article sometime after the time I saw. I’m assuming the meeting was still going on when they filed the first report. The article also stated that the UC President had been advised of the decision prior to announcement.
|
|
|
Post by InfoBot on Dec 14, 2022 20:20:52 GMT -5
The SI article says, "The board also recommended UCLA pay the Berkeley campus $2 to $5 million, depending on the end result of the Pac-12's ongoing media rights negotiation, to stabilize student-athlete support on its sister campus...After putting it to a vote in the open session, the ceiling of the Berkeley subsidy was bumped up to $10 million." So does that mean this is a one-time payment? I inititailly read this as an annual thing
|
|