|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 14, 2023 21:00:21 GMT -5
Don't know what this means exactly . . . I think it means that only Washington State and Oregon State can vote on Pac-12 matters and now have control of its assets. Pending appeal, of course.
|
|
|
Post by JJVb on Nov 14, 2023 21:06:16 GMT -5
Don't know what this means exactly . . . Good for them; however, I am sure that this will be appealed. Going to go on for awhile..
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 14, 2023 21:27:14 GMT -5
I haven't fully looked into this issue, but how was this not decided by a federal judge given the diversity of the parties? Also, the judge is a Washington State grad, how did he not recuse himself? Also, regardless of the final outcome, WSU and OSU, as board members, still have to act a responsible fiduciaries to the other stakeholders (even if they aren't board members) as it relates to revenue this year. They won't be able to just keep the money themselves, otherwise they are going to get sued for breach of duty and almost surely lose (the opinions of some random Palouse Superior Court judge notwithstanding).
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Nov 14, 2023 21:53:38 GMT -5
I haven't fully looked into this issue, but how was this not decided by a federal judge given the diversity of the parties? Also, the judge is a Washington State grad, how did he not recuse himself? Also, regardless of the final outcome, WSU and OSU, as board members, still have to act a responsible fiduciaries to the other stakeholders (even if they aren't board members) as it relates to revenue this year. They won't be able to just keep the money themselves, otherwise they are going to get sued for breach of duty and almost surely lose (the opinions of some random Palouse Superior Court judge notwithstanding). My initial reflex was removal, but they lack complete diversity because UW is technically on the other side of the v as members of the PAC-12 (which is an unincorporated association and citizen of everywhere its members are). And with this, I will go back to never thinking about civ pro ever again.
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Nov 14, 2023 21:55:14 GMT -5
Don't know what this means exactly . . . It means a lot of attorneys will make a lot of money for a long time. Then a settlement will be reached.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 14, 2023 22:02:07 GMT -5
Don't know what this means exactly . . . It means a lot of attorneys will make a lot of money for a long time. Then a settlement will be reached. That’s every lawsuit
|
|
|
Post by luckydawg on Nov 14, 2023 23:38:05 GMT -5
It means a lot of attorneys will make a lot of money for a long time. Then a settlement will be reached. That’s every lawsuit But not every lawsuit involves $400m.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Nov 15, 2023 0:24:52 GMT -5
Why have Washington and Minnesota crashed? Was the talent depleted when said coach left Washington for another barren (Minnesota)?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Nov 15, 2023 0:32:49 GMT -5
Just when I thought I couldn't have a lower opinion of how the Pac-12 managed itself:
|
|
|
Post by blackiechan1999 on Nov 15, 2023 0:39:01 GMT -5
I haven't fully looked into this issue, but how was this not decided by a federal judge given the diversity of the parties? Also, the judge is a Washington State grad, how did he not recuse himself? Also, regardless of the final outcome, WSU and OSU, as board members, still have to act a responsible fiduciaries to the other stakeholders (even if they aren't board members) as it relates to revenue this year. They won't be able to just keep the money themselves, otherwise they are going to get sued for breach of duty and almost surely lose (the opinions of some random Palouse Superior Court judge notwithstanding). My initial reflex was removal, but they lack complete diversity because UW is technically on the other side of the v as members of the PAC-12 (which is an unincorporated association and citizen of everywhere its members are). And with this, I will go back to never thinking about civ pro ever again. My least favorite subject in law school 🤢🤮
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 15, 2023 3:15:51 GMT -5
I haven't fully looked into this issue, but how was this not decided by a federal judge given the diversity of the parties? Also, the judge is a Washington State grad, how did he not recuse himself? Also, regardless of the final outcome, WSU and OSU, as board members, still have to act a responsible fiduciaries to the other stakeholders (even if they aren't board members) as it relates to revenue this year. They won't be able to just keep the money themselves, otherwise they are going to get sued for breach of duty and almost surely lose (the opinions of some random Palouse Superior Court judge notwithstanding). My initial reflex was removal, but they lack complete diversity because UW is technically on the other side of the v as members of the PAC-12 (which is an unincorporated association and citizen of everywhere its members are). And with this, I will go back to never thinking about civ pro ever again. Yeah I suppose I could see that argument re diversity of parties. I am still shocked the judge did not recuse himself - he's a Washington State graduate and the university is a party seeking relief in the form of explicit financial gain. Any history of this guy giving money to the school is a pretty big red flag for a conflict of interest. I'm not sure how many other superior court judges in that county DIDN'T have affiliation with WSU, but this one seems pretty suspect to me. Again, I didn't read the Pac-12 charter/bylaws and I'm not sure I really care to, but other than attorneys wanting to line their pockets, appealing this decision may end up just being a lost cause. I don't think this ruling actually impacts the $$$ that the schools are going to get this year and perhaps the most prudent approach for the rest of the conference is to accept the ruling and *if* OSU/WSU act out of their fiduciary duty to be fair with the revenue this year, that's when they lawyer up. Though, many lawyers aren't very prudent and just money hungry, so this isn't likely to happen.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 15, 2023 3:31:38 GMT -5
I don't think the argument is about "revenue this year". I think it is about any capital assets.
Like, if the leaving 10 voted to liquidate all PAC assets and distribute them to the current membership before they leave, they each walk away with a 12th share. But if WSU and OSU have control, they keep all the capital assets for the conference (themselves) intact, and the others just leave without cashing out.
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Nov 15, 2023 4:01:05 GMT -5
I don't think the argument is about "revenue this year". I think it is about any capital assets. Like, if the leaving 10 voted to liquidate all PAC assets and distribute them to the current membership before they leave, they each walk away with a 12th share. But if WSU and OSU have control, they keep all the capital assets for the conference (themselves) intact, and the others just leave without cashing out. Besides name recognition what PAC-12 assets are left? edit: "The Pac-12 announced on March 29, 2022 plans to forego a permanent headquarters in order to best support employees and deliver savings to member universities. Included in the announcement, the Pac-12 will determine a location for a production facility for continued broadcast production activities. "
|
|
|
Post by blue-footedbooby on Nov 15, 2023 4:17:38 GMT -5
Don't know what this means exactly . . . This is great news! I wonder if the Cougs and Beavs will ever allow any of the former members back in once they realize what a mistake they have all made by leaving. I sure hope not, greedy bastards. Meanwhile, what will the new pac look like? WSU, OSU, Boise, San Diego, Nevada, San Jose, Hawaii? This should be fun forming a new conference from scratch. Go Cougs! From bottom of the PAC-12 in stature to the top in one fell swoop.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 15, 2023 5:12:44 GMT -5
I don't think the argument is about "revenue this year". I think it is about any capital assets. Like, if the leaving 10 voted to liquidate all PAC assets and distribute them to the current membership before they leave, they each walk away with a 12th share. But if WSU and OSU have control, they keep all the capital assets for the conference (themselves) intact, and the others just leave without cashing out. Besides name recognition what PAC-12 assets are left? For one thing, I bet there is a huge archive of old video. Who has the rights to re-air a 1990 USC/Washington football game? USC? Washington? Or the PAC-12?
|
|