https://x.com/petethamel/status/17002066...E0_xipAVQw

Damn that's a mess.

(09-08-2023 01:06 PM)RamblinRedWolf Wrote:  

Huge Mess!

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.

At this point, I think its within the exiting members rights to properly liquidate the assets and pay off the remaining liabilities such as the Comcast dispute.

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.

Divorce is never pretty.

However, this implicitly proves that WasSU/OrSU has nothing, no options but join the MWC, without the PAC assets.

Excellent reporting by Pete Thamel.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...int-pac-12

Guessing Cal and Stanford are behind this ****. A) it didn’t come up until they left 2) they need the money with their ACC deal 3) it’s completely in character with those two schools.

I'd love for this to go to court and have Fox and ESPN exposed.

(09-08-2023 01:23 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  

(09-08-2023 01:06 PM)RamblinRedWolf Wrote:  

Huge Mess!

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.

At this point, I think its within the exiting members rights to properly liquidate the assets and pay off the remaining liabilities such as the Comcast dispute.

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.

The pac12 is still a conference by NCAA bylaws. As long as they have a school in they considered a conference.

They have a two year grace period to get back to NCAA competition level membership.

(09-08-2023 01:27 PM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  Divorce is never pretty.

However, this implicitly proves that WasSU/OrSU has nothing, no options but join the MWC, without the PAC assets.

Well obviously, if the departing schools can legally dissolve the conference after announcing their exit those 2 are even more forked than they already are. I find it very hard to believe they'll be allowed to do that, but maybe I'm wrong the PAC clearly makes C-USA look like a well oiled machine by comparison.

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

And CBS. And NBC. And the B1G, BXII, and ACC.

/not snark.

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.

(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.

I'm rooting for WSU and OSU. They should do everything in their power to prevent the departing 10 from dissolving the conference. I think they will have a strong legal case that they are the only remaining board members with voting rights. The departing members will likely argue that they never gave formal notice to withdraw but I think that the public acceptance of an invitation to join another conference can be legally construed as giving such notice.

If they are trying to vote to dissolve the conference on the way out the door after you publicly announced your departures I think you are starting to open the door to tortious interference/collusion being possible.

A notice to depart a conference is not actual departure. PAC members will play the 2023-24 sports in the PAC, so aren't they members until they actually leave?

Also, don't the not-yet-departed members have a vested interest in all that $$? After all, they are on the hook for some of what's owed to Comcast.

(09-08-2023 01:53 PM)pvk75 Wrote:  A notice to depart a conference is not actual departure. PAC members will play the 2023-24 sports in the PAC, so aren't they members until they actually leave?

Also, don't the not-yet-departed members have a vested interest in all that $$? After all, they are on the hook for some of what's owed to Comcast.

Quote:The essence of Washington State and Oregon State's concerns, if the league's 12 schools formally meet, is that the current members could vote to dissolve or evenly distribute the remaining assets. Washington State and Oregon State consider themselves the only board members and are seeking to survey their options moving forward. They pointed to the conference's bylaws, which state that any notice of withdrawal from the league means a school "automatically cease(s) to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter."

The meeting was scheduled, according to the legal filings, after Washington State president Kirk Schulz, the chair of the Pac-12 board of directors, declined to call a board meeting after a telephone conversation with Kliavkoff on or around Aug. 29. Schulz feared that Kliavkoff "would allow the withdrawing universities' former Board representatives to vote on a number of matters, even though they no longer have the right to vote on any matter," according to the legal documents.

In a supporting document, Schulz says he needs "urgent intervention" on whether the departing schools can hold a seat on the Pac-12 board and vote.

"The Pac-12 Conference and the Pac-12 Conference Board of Directors cannot resolve this dispute through internal means," Schulz says in the filing. "At its core, this is a dispute over who has the authority to act on behalf of the Pac-12 Conference. Only judicial intervention can resolve this dispute."

The filing includes a comment from one departing school, which is not named: "One representative from a departing Pac-12 member stated his view just two days ago that '9 Members can declare the fate of the Conference at any time.'"

The Pac-12 has seen 10 members leave since last summer, starting when UCLA and USC announced they would join the Big Ten in 2024. The complaint points out that the board seats and voting rights of those schools were immediately rescinded.

(09-08-2023 01:23 PM)ArmoredUpKnight Wrote:  I think the NCAA bylaws supersede the Pac-12 bylaws.

In this matter the NCAA definition of "conference" matters none.

This is a contract law dispute in public courts.

They're asking a judge to read and interpret what the conference bylaws say and mean.

The primary question, really the only question, is: When does a member lose voting rights? At public announcement of intent to depart, or, only upon formal written declaration of intent to depart to the conference office.

Clearly WasSU/OrSU believe it's "public notice". The others haven't sent the formal letter to the PAC office believing they keep voting rights until they do.

WasSU filed in a WA court. I believe this is filed in the wrong jurisdiction. The PAC office is in SF and this should filed in a CA court assuming the bylaws are written with CA law governing contract terms.

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.

(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?

(09-08-2023 01:15 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  Damn that's a mess.

Actually it’s more clear now. The Conference bylaws actually state that members who are leaving don’t get a vote. Why in the world Kliavkoff wouldn’t even follow the bylaws and force the lawsuit is beyond me.

This demonstrates how tricky it is to leave a conference by dissolving. There aren’t any exit fees but they still can’t even get this right. The way to do it right would have been to kick WOSU out of the league on Aug 4…but Calford knew that that they might end up stuck in the Pac so that wouldn’t work, either, only 8 votes to kick isn’t enough.

The MWC can learn from this. Assuming enough of the members get invites, they can vote out the stragglers then vote to dissolve the conference.