(10-03-2023 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:15 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 11:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:43 PM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/09/27/p...-happened/

"...Instead, Cauce said the $50 million figure was discussed last year as a target for the total revenue distributions to the campuses — meaning it would have included payouts from the College Football Playoff, the NCAA Tournament and the media rights deal.

“In some models, it was possible for some schools to get $50 million,” Cauce told the Hotline in an interview earlier this month. “But at no time did anyone think we could all get $50 million in media rights. That would have been stupid.”

Cauce explained that after the announced departures of USC and UCLA (in June 2022), commissioner George Kliavkoff told the 10 remaining presidents that 30 percent of the conference’s media valuation “just walked out the door.”

“There was no scenario in which everybody thought the schools could bring in $50 million,” Cauce added. “The estimates from George were in the $30 millions to low $40 millions. Potentially, some (schools) could make $50 million with the (playoff) and media rights...."”

From the above Wilner article: Several sources took issue with Cauce’s interpretation of the negotiations with ESPN last fall and said the presidents supported asking for $50 million per school per year.

Sources said Kliavkoff provided the presidents with a valuation range of about $35 million to $43 million for the entirety of the Pac-12’s media rights.

Said another source: “People with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions. One president said, ‘We should be in the 50s.’ That caused delays.

According to multiple sources, the presidents were made aware of the risks involved in negotiating for $50 million per school — mainly, that it could prompt ESPN to walk away and, in the words of one source, “drive them into the arms of the Big 12.”

So why did the Pac-12 move forward with the unreasonable proposal?

Multiple sources indicated Kliavkoff failed in his role as steward of the negotiations: Knowing that ESPN would consider the $50 million price exorbitant, he should have pushed back against the presidents.

“You need a commissioner who can talk about the reality of where everybody’s at,’’ a source said. “George needed to manage that.”

Nobody in the article is saying they made the $50 million counter offer. ESPN has said they NEVER countered ESPN's final offer. The UW president who was head of the executive committee said she didn't know of any counter-offer. Its just a false narrative. Remember, it came from Canzano.

I don't know why this is important to you. But Canzano, Wilner, Mandel, and multiple other sources confirmed the story. It did originally come from Canzano, who is a respected source for west coast college athletics. Kliavkoff is not talking. Maybe he will talk next week at the Pac-12 basketball Media Day event in Las Vegas. The real journalists covering this story did the best they could. Even now, there is more to this story that needs to be told. Ana Mari Cauce disputes a counteroffer of $50 million and other sources dispute her account. The truth will eventually come out.

Canzano, Wilner and Mandel-the 3 stooges of west coast reporting. Canzano has turned himself into a total clown.
The most reliable source is ESPN. They are also unbiased. Their president said there was no counteroffer. I don't know why it is so important to you to discount the one source without an agenda.

Do you really believe that there was no counteroffer from ESPN? That they are unbiased? The LA Times confirmed the $50 million per school counteroffer as well.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...cla-oregon

Kliavkoff brought the schools an ESPN offer of $30 million per school annually for all of their rights. The Pac-12’s analysis said the schools would be worth somewhere in the mid-$30-million range apiece, so they could go back to ESPN with a reasonable counter in the high $30-million-range and maybe the two sides would end up around $35 million.

When the Pac-12 CEO group met to discuss the offer, one of the league presidents had other ideas. The president worked with a professor on his campus to come up with their own estimate of what the 10 schools should get based on their market value: $50 million.

“George and our media consultant were pretty clear there was some risk, but they said, ‘Nope, our numbers show we’re worth this, go ask for it,’” a source with direct knowledge of the negotiations not authorized to speak publicly about them told The Times. “... ESPN did not react very well to it.”

To think that ESPN does not have an agenda is ridiculous. I will go with the west coast reporters on this story. Everyone agrees that there was a counteroffer to ESPN, and it did not work out for the Pac-12. Ana Mari Cauce told Wilner, "I cannot tell you for sure that (Kliavkoff) asked for $50 million per school." The LA Times, Canzano, Wilner, Mandel, and every other west coast reporter reported on a counteroffer of $50 million per school.

Personally, it does not matter to me. The Pac-12 as I know it is done. Again, I don't know why this is so important to you. Why does any of this matter to you?

(10-03-2023 01:35 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 12:15 AM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 11:25 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 09:20 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  From the above Wilner article: Several sources took issue with Cauce’s interpretation of the negotiations with ESPN last fall and said the presidents supported asking for $50 million per school per year.

Sources said Kliavkoff provided the presidents with a valuation range of about $35 million to $43 million for the entirety of the Pac-12’s media rights.

Said another source: “People with expertise were telling them there was a path to a deal in the $30 millions. One president said, ‘We should be in the 50s.’ That caused delays.

According to multiple sources, the presidents were made aware of the risks involved in negotiating for $50 million per school — mainly, that it could prompt ESPN to walk away and, in the words of one source, “drive them into the arms of the Big 12.”

So why did the Pac-12 move forward with the unreasonable proposal?

Multiple sources indicated Kliavkoff failed in his role as steward of the negotiations: Knowing that ESPN would consider the $50 million price exorbitant, he should have pushed back against the presidents.

“You need a commissioner who can talk about the reality of where everybody’s at,’’ a source said. “George needed to manage that.”

Nobody in the article is saying they made the $50 million counter offer. ESPN has said they NEVER countered ESPN's final offer. The UW president who was head of the executive committee said she didn't know of any counter-offer. Its just a false narrative. Remember, it came from Canzano.

I don't know why this is important to you. But Canzano, Wilner, Mandel, and multiple other sources confirmed the story. It did originally come from Canzano, who is a respected source for west coast college athletics. Kliavkoff is not talking. Maybe he will talk next week at the Pac-12 basketball Media Day event in Las Vegas. The real journalists covering this story did the best they could. Even now, there is more to this story that needs to be told. Ana Mari Cauce disputes a counteroffer of $50 million and other sources dispute her account. The truth will eventually come out.

Canzano, Wilner and Mandel-the 3 stooges of west coast reporting. Canzano has turned himself into a total clown.
The most reliable source is ESPN. They are also unbiased. Their president said there was no counteroffer. I don't know why it is so important to you to discount the one source without an agenda.

Do you really believe that there was no counteroffer from ESPN? That they are unbiased? The LA Times confirmed the $50 million per school counteroffer as well.
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/202...cla-oregon

Kliavkoff brought the schools an ESPN offer of $30 million per school annually for all of their rights. The Pac-12’s analysis said the schools would be worth somewhere in the mid-$30-million range apiece, so they could go back to ESPN with a reasonable counter in the high $30-million-range and maybe the two sides would end up around $35 million.

When the Pac-12 CEO group met to discuss the offer, one of the league presidents had other ideas. The president worked with a professor on his campus to come up with their own estimate of what the 10 schools should get based on their market value: $50 million.

“George and our media consultant were pretty clear there was some risk, but they said, ‘Nope, our numbers show we’re worth this, go ask for it,’” a source with direct knowledge of the negotiations not authorized to speak publicly about them told The Times. “... ESPN did not react very well to it.”

To think that ESPN does not have an agenda is ridiculous. I will go with the west coast reporters on this story. Everyone agrees that there was a counteroffer to ESPN, and it did not work out for the Pac-12. Ana Mari Cauce told Wilner, "I cannot tell you for sure that (Kliavkoff) asked for $50 million per school." The LA Times, Canzano, Wilner, Mandel, and every other west coast reporter reported on a counteroffer of $50 million per school.

Personally, it does not matter to me. The Pac-12 as I know it is done. Again, I don't know why this is so important to you. Why does any of this matter to you?

If it doesn't matter to you, why do you keep responding? It obviously matters to you a lot.

Why would ESPN deny that the Pac made a counteroffer?
Why would the UW president who was head of the executive committee say she never heard of a $50 million counter-offer?
What probably happened is they just told them it wasn't good enough and waited for ESPN to raise their offer, but ESPN lost interest.

The whole story smells like someone in Kliavcoff's office trying to shift blame from him to the presidents. Its an anonymous source. The UW president and ESPN president are first hand specific sources. And in the media today most stories come back to a single source when you trace it back. People repeat what other reporters say and sometimes repeat the same source. This $50 million counter-offer claim is just coming from a single source. (note: Actually making a $50 million counter-offer is different than the story that a president thought they were worth $50 million in media rights).

(10-03-2023 07:05 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 05:40 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  “We should be in the 50’s.” The conference fell apart on an “I think/I blieve/I feel” statement.

Well, for four schools, that’s now a reality. Of course, they won’t mention it meant conjoining with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to achieve it.

Good lord, the hubris…

Its what Ive said many times before… Oregon, Washington and a few others werent going to be satisfied staying behind. The B1G was their preferred destination. They werent going to settle for 30m or for adding SDSU and SMU and calling it a day.

I’m thinking prior to it getting to SDSU and SMU. I’m thinking when there was a panic in the Big XII over UT and OU. Like, was it USC or UCLA saying that before they left and when they were possibly poo-poo’ing Big XII schools and thinking that just the twelve of them were worth that number?

That big money required big schools and many of them. Nobody either applied or “met the standards.” It’s just such a laughable mess.

(10-03-2023 10:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 07:05 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 05:40 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  “We should be in the 50’s.” The conference fell apart on an “I think/I blieve/I feel” statement.

Well, for four schools, that’s now a reality. Of course, they won’t mention it meant conjoining with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to achieve it.

Good lord, the hubris…

Its what Ive said many times before… Oregon, Washington and a few others werent going to be satisfied staying behind. The B1G was their preferred destination. They werent going to settle for 30m or for adding SDSU and SMU and calling it a day.

Neither UW or UO want to be implicated in putting the final nail in the coffin of the PAC. Lawsuits are going to happen and I don't think those schools, FOX or the B1G want that to happen I keeps telling people the first lawsuits will likely be from athletes in non-revenue generating sports who are more impacted by travel while not getting the NIL money FB players get.

I don’t understand the lawsuit angle (and I’m a lawyer that looks at everything through the eyes of whether a potential lawsuit is there).

This is a pure free market capitalism issue: Fox and the Big Ten made a larger offer of guaranteed money and exposure than the Pac-12 and Apple. Same thing with the Big 12 and ESPN/Fox. Apple is the wealthiest corporation in human history, so this isn’t a matter of a larger competitor boxing out a smaller one in an anticompetitive manner. Lots of non-revenue sports have long had rough travel schedules: see just Hawaii and Alaska along a school like Stanford that has been part of the America East for field hockey. There are no legal claims here. The Pac-12 schools that left got a better offer and took it: that’s the most legal thing that you can do in America.

Soccer, softball, baseball, volleyball or any other sports that play "league games" who want to go to Cal, Stanford, Washington, UCLA and USC have the case that they are being harmed much more than the athletes in FB (due to travel) while not getting fairly compensated for it. So now, they have to chose between going to a school they value academically or in status or one that allows them to pursue their athletic pursuits. They will be able to point to football in its singularity for the reasons behind the moves made to date. Trust me, no one involved in the BIG, FOX, Wash, Ore and, likely, many others will not want discovery to happen.

God, if a lawyer doesn't see how much they can get for such a suit I will find the most litigious firm in the country and recommend it to them for a piece of the action.

(10-03-2023 11:52 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 07:05 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 05:40 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  “We should be in the 50’s.” The conference fell apart on an “I think/I blieve/I feel” statement.

Well, for four schools, that’s now a reality. Of course, they won’t mention it meant conjoining with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to achieve it.

Good lord, the hubris…

Its what Ive said many times before… Oregon, Washington and a few others werent going to be satisfied staying behind. The B1G was their preferred destination. They werent going to settle for 30m or for adding SDSU and SMU and calling it a day.

Neither UW or UO want to be implicated in putting the final nail in the coffin of the PAC. Lawsuits are going to happen and I don't think those schools, FOX or the B1G want that to happen I keeps telling people the first lawsuits will likely be from athletes in non-revenue generating sports who are more impacted by travel while not getting the NIL money FB players get.

I don’t understand the lawsuit angle (and I’m a lawyer that looks at everything through the eyes of whether a potential lawsuit is there).

This is a pure free market capitalism issue: Fox and the Big Ten made a larger offer of guaranteed money and exposure than the Pac-12 and Apple. Same thing with the Big 12 and ESPN/Fox. Apple is the wealthiest corporation in human history, so this isn’t a matter of a larger competitor boxing out a smaller one in an anticompetitive manner. Lots of non-revenue sports have long had rough travel schedules: see just Hawaii and Alaska along a school like Stanford that has been part of the America East for field hockey. There are no legal claims here. The Pac-12 schools that left got a better offer and took it: that’s the most legal thing that you can do in America.

Soccer, softball, baseball, volleyball or any other sports that play "league games" who want to go to Cal, Stanford, Washington, UCLA and USC have the case that they are being harmed much more than the athletes in FB (due to travel) while not getting fairly compensated for it. So now, they have to chose between going to a school they value academically or in status or one that allows them to pursue their athletic pursuits. They will be able to point to football in its singularity for the reasons behind the moves made to date. Trust me, no one involved in the BIG, FOX, Wash, Ore and, likely, many others will not want discovery to happen.

God, if a lawyer doesn't see how much they can get for such a suit I will find the most litigious firm in the country and recommend it to them for a piece of the action.

A case as to whether an athlete is entitled to compensation for their time is one thing - that issue applies whether athletes are traveling on 10 hour flights or all on short bus rides across town. That’s actionable from a legal perspective (and one that I have long personally supported).

However, simply stating that there is a harm to excessive travel in and of itself isn’t actionable. The non-revenue sports scholarships also exist only because of football and men’s basketball money, so the choice isn’t going to UCLA on an athletic scholarship with bus rides for travel or cross-country flights, but whether one gets an athletic scholarship to UCLA for anything at all without football and basketball money.

Otherwise, what discovery is anyone worried about? That networks want to pay tons of money for the best football brands and that’s entirely what conference realignment is about? We could figure that out for free without the legal fees.

It always cracks me up what people think is the basis to a lawsuit - having to travel more than expected might be a pain, but there is no legal issue that arises out of it. Even if one thought that there was a claim, the transfer portal already provides a remedy for those that put a premium on reducing travel as opposed to the level of competition. On the flip side, we get lots of suggestions here to the effect of, “Everyone should get into a room and collectively agree to do XYZ for conference realignment”, which is basically a screaming red flag that it’s an illegal antitrust action (which is exactly where college sports have always got into trouble, ranging from the Oklahoma TV rights case to Alston), yet people ignore it because they want/hope for some type of managed and smooth outcome.

TLDR: people’s perceptions of what is the “right outcome” have little relation as to what’s a legal claim or not.

(10-03-2023 09:33 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 07:05 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 05:40 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  “We should be in the 50’s.” The conference fell apart on an “I think/I blieve/I feel” statement.

Well, for four schools, that’s now a reality. Of course, they won’t mention it meant conjoining with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to achieve it.

Good lord, the hubris…

Its what Ive said many times before… Oregon, Washington and a few others werent going to be satisfied staying behind. The B1G was their preferred destination. They werent going to settle for 30m or for adding SDSU and SMU and calling it a day.

I still think that the whole situation was very odd. The B1G leaks to McMurphy stating that they'd look at the Pac again if there was further instability? We all thought that it sounded ridiculous, but it came from McMurphy...obviously, it was not ridiculous at all, but rather a public signal to UW/UO to hold on until CU left town. I mean, that basically guaranteed that nothing the Pac came up with would be good enough.

Yes, this is a key point. If the "we don't want to be the ones to kill the PAC" position was real, for even one or two Big Ten Presidents needed to get the invite supermajority, there could well be a situation in the Big Ten with Washington and Oregon being "yeah, if everyone else signs on to a media deal, we will too", simply because if nobody else bolted, they wouldn't get their entry into the Big Ten.

Then if the AppleTV offer -- which was likely less money and inarguably less exposure than the ESPN deal they had not accepted -- isn't enough to hold Colorado, that's all she wrote. "As you can see, the PAC-12 is falling apart, so you won't be the ones to kill the PAC-10." ... and the Presidents who had the continued existence of the PAC-10 as their preferred outcome crossed that off the list of options, and there was the invite for Washington and Oregon as their option #2.

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 07:05 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 05:40 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  “We should be in the 50’s.” The conference fell apart on an “I think/I blieve/I feel” statement.

Well, for four schools, that’s now a reality. Of course, they won’t mention it meant conjoining with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to achieve it.

Good lord, the hubris…

Its what Ive said many times before… Oregon, Washington and a few others werent going to be satisfied staying behind. The B1G was their preferred destination. They werent going to settle for 30m or for adding SDSU and SMU and calling it a day.

Neither UW or UO want to be implicated in putting the final nail in the coffin of the PAC. Lawsuits are going to happen and I don't think those schools, FOX or the B1G want that to happen I keeps telling people the first lawsuits will likely be from athletes in non-revenue generating sports who are more impacted by travel while not getting the NIL money FB players get.

What would they sue over? That is just silly. They are getting an education, free of charge, if they don't want to travel, or play the schedule, they can transfer. The reality is most non-revenue generating athletes already do a lot of their classes online due to travel.

(10-04-2023 07:50 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 11:52 PM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:11 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 07:05 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  Its what Ive said many times before… Oregon, Washington and a few others werent going to be satisfied staying behind. The B1G was their preferred destination. They werent going to settle for 30m or for adding SDSU and SMU and calling it a day.

Neither UW or UO want to be implicated in putting the final nail in the coffin of the PAC. Lawsuits are going to happen and I don't think those schools, FOX or the B1G want that to happen I keeps telling people the first lawsuits will likely be from athletes in non-revenue generating sports who are more impacted by travel while not getting the NIL money FB players get.

I don’t understand the lawsuit angle (and I’m a lawyer that looks at everything through the eyes of whether a potential lawsuit is there).

This is a pure free market capitalism issue: Fox and the Big Ten made a larger offer of guaranteed money and exposure than the Pac-12 and Apple. Same thing with the Big 12 and ESPN/Fox. Apple is the wealthiest corporation in human history, so this isn’t a matter of a larger competitor boxing out a smaller one in an anticompetitive manner. Lots of non-revenue sports have long had rough travel schedules: see just Hawaii and Alaska along a school like Stanford that has been part of the America East for field hockey. There are no legal claims here. The Pac-12 schools that left got a better offer and took it: that’s the most legal thing that you can do in America.

Soccer, softball, baseball, volleyball or any other sports that play "league games" who want to go to Cal, Stanford, Washington, UCLA and USC have the case that they are being harmed much more than the athletes in FB (due to travel) while not getting fairly compensated for it. So now, they have to chose between going to a school they value academically or in status or one that allows them to pursue their athletic pursuits. They will be able to point to football in its singularity for the reasons behind the moves made to date. Trust me, no one involved in the BIG, FOX, Wash, Ore and, likely, many others will not want discovery to happen.

God, if a lawyer doesn't see how much they can get for such a suit I will find the most litigious firm in the country and recommend it to them for a piece of the action.

A case as to whether an athlete is entitled to compensation for their time is one thing - that issue applies whether athletes are traveling on 10 hour flights or all on short bus rides across town. That’s actionable from a legal perspective (and one that I have long personally supported).

However, simply stating that there is a harm to excessive travel in and of itself isn’t actionable. The non-revenue sports scholarships also exist only because of football and men’s basketball money, so the choice isn’t going to UCLA on an athletic scholarship with bus rides for travel or cross-country flights, but whether one gets an athletic scholarship to UCLA for anything at all without football and basketball money.

Otherwise, what discovery is anyone worried about? That networks want to pay tons of money for the best football brands and that’s entirely what conference realignment is about? We could figure that out for free without the legal fees.

It always cracks me up what people think is the basis to a lawsuit - having to travel more than expected might be a pain, but there is no legal issue that arises out of it. Even if one thought that there was a claim, the transfer portal already provides a remedy for those that put a premium on reducing travel as opposed to the level of competition. On the flip side, we get lots of suggestions here to the effect of, “Everyone should get into a room and collectively agree to do XYZ for conference realignment”, which is basically a screaming red flag that it’s an illegal antitrust action (which is exactly where college sports have always got into trouble, ranging from the Oklahoma TV rights case to Alston), yet people ignore it because they want/hope for some type of managed and smooth outcome.

TLDR: people’s perceptions of what is the “right outcome” have little relation as to what’s a legal claim or not.

Discovery will expose what happened behind the scenes. Ever hear about not wanting to see how sausage is made? Can you agree that there appears to have been a coordinated effort to undermine the PAC media negotiations? Can you agree that FOX/NBC got the 4 best PAC FB programs - two for half what they paid for USCLA? Can you agree that ESPN/Fox then got the next 4 programs for $32M? Now, if 6 of the remaining 10 programs were worth $32-35M/year why is it that they were not worth that much as part of the PAC? I read that the B1G publicly said they would not take any more PAC schools unless there was more "instability." When Colorado left was that really the domino? Again, I think that those involved would prefer not to have a light shown on what transpired.

Lawsuits are going to happen and the feds will get involved given the amount of money being thrown around. At the very least, they are going to want their cut, but they will use the "we're looking after the wellbeing of the student athletes" as an excuse to create legislation to "fix" the problems. This may lead to breaking football away from the other sports, something that the top 20 - 30 schools would welcome, the feds just may make this happen earlier than they can plan for. If you want to break the ACC GOR, this would do it. We have already seen Washington softball players complain about the move to the B1G and I expect to see more players speak out. Hell, those athletes at Stanford and Cal have it even worse.

(10-04-2023 09:17 AM)jacksfan29! Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 10:04 AM)Aztecgolfer Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 07:05 AM)PicksUp Wrote:  

(10-03-2023 05:40 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  “We should be in the 50’s.” The conference fell apart on an “I think/I blieve/I feel” statement.

Well, for four schools, that’s now a reality. Of course, they won’t mention it meant conjoining with Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to achieve it.

Good lord, the hubris…

Its what Ive said many times before… Oregon, Washington and a few others werent going to be satisfied staying behind. The B1G was their preferred destination. They werent going to settle for 30m or for adding SDSU and SMU and calling it a day.

Neither UW or UO want to be implicated in putting the final nail in the coffin of the PAC. Lawsuits are going to happen and I don't think those schools, FOX or the B1G want that to happen I keeps telling people the first lawsuits will likely be from athletes in non-revenue generating sports who are more impacted by travel while not getting the NIL money FB players get.

What would they sue over? That is just silly. They are getting an education, free of charge, if they don't want to travel, or play the schedule, they can transfer. The reality is most non-revenue generating athletes already do a lot of their classes online due to travel.

Yes, they can transfer but that is limiting their educational choices. Are you saying that a Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA or Washington diploma isn't worth more than from most other universities?

No worries, the feds are just waiting to come in and "fix" these issues. They just need to right excuse to do so.