The complaint is sort of unclear. It alleges that UCLA and USC announced they were leaving and then says they gave notice of withdrawal, seeming to conflate the two.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
CU has rejoined the Big 12 and broken college football - talking out asses continues
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
The complaint is sort of unclear. It alleges that UCLA and USC announced they were leaving and then says they gave notice of withdrawal, seeming to conflate the two.
If it was the notice delivery tied to the date, it would read "deliver in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024 a notice of withdrawal to the Conference".
However, the clause is tied to the withdrawal, not the notice, because it reads "deliver a notice of withdrawal to the Conference in the period beginning on July 24, 2011, and ending on August 1, 2024".
The dates are defining a withdrawal date period, not a notice date period.
Exactly. This isn’t difficult
It's definitely ambiguous, which means WSU and OSU will have a difficult time getting an injunction. I would also expect a removal to federal court, which will delay the process. I'm not sure they can't get what they want anyway.
Ding, ding, ding.
The bolded is right on, and why non-lawyers should pay lawyers to read legal documents for them (or gain that competence by working alongside way too many lawyers while negotiating exactly these sorts of contracts).
Also, @BuffsNYC is right: at *best* it's ambiguous, and if 10 parties to the contract say they thought it meant one thing, and two say otherwise, it's going to be a tough row to hoe for the two in the minority.
Ambiguity is sometimes your friend, and sometimes not. I've definitely had lawyers both make sure something was ambiguous, and, in other situations, make damn sure it was crystal clear.
- It sounds like the George K is attempting to call an official directors meeting next week that would apparently involve and or allow the departing members to participate.
- The conference rules/bylaws from the handbook (assumedly backed up by contracts) indicates that members that gave notice are removed from the board of directors upon giving notice and cant be involved in decision making on the conferences future.
- Previously Departing members USC and UCLA were removed last year at the time of their notice ( the precedent ).
- WSU and OSU asking for an Temp Restraining Order to stop the meeting.
- WSUs President is Chairman of the Board of Directors.
Some kind of power struggle is ensuing. Maybe it says somewhere that half the conference leaves it dissolves? I dunno.
Last edited:
Also, WSU and OSU are going to have a very hard time proving that even they believed their current interpretation of that clause because they didn't take any action to kick UCLA and USC out when those two said they were leaving.
Two schools leave, months pass, no action.
Another school leaves, another couple months pass, no action.
Another 3 schools leave, another month or passes, no action.
Another 2 schools leave, a couple weeks later: now you do something?
First question a competent judge is gonna ask is if they believe their legal argument, why did they wait 10 months to actually file this motion?
Two schools leave, months pass, no action.
Another school leaves, another couple months pass, no action.
Another 3 schools leave, another month or passes, no action.
Another 2 schools leave, a couple weeks later: now you do something?
First question a competent judge is gonna ask is if they believe their legal argument, why did they wait 10 months to actually file this motion?
You say it a lot more clear than I was able to.
At this point, I would be more interested in the contract's or bylaw's disputes clause than the withdrawal clause. Ie, if there is anything in there about arbitration or how they are supposed to handle disputes between the corporate entity and member schools?
Like I said, a bunch of lawyers are going to make a lot of money negotiating this. I don’t think anyone is going to end up happy (except the law firms)
It’s the one that says Hawaii and San Diego are kinda close to the Pacific Ocean.
Or the one that shows Louisville and Pittsburg are nowhere near the Atlantic Ocean. To post of yours I applied to sounded asinine.
This commercial completely encapsulates this thread. 
I was watching the live stream of the court hearing.
It's interesting.
Temporary injunction on any board meetings while the bigger issues are worked out
However....any decision can be made by the 12 members if and only if it is unanimous by all 12 members.
So...have fun with that with this group.
It's interesting.
Temporary injunction on any board meetings while the bigger issues are worked out
However....any decision can be made by the 12 members if and only if it is unanimous by all 12 members.
So...have fun with that with this group.
I think our near future is fine so I'm cool with WSU and OSU spitefully pissing off the LA schools, etcI was watching the live stream of the court hearing.
It's interesting.
Temporary injunction on any board meetings while the bigger issues are worked out
However....any decision can be made by the 12 members if and only if it is unanimous by all 12 members.
So...have fun with that with this group.
I just don't want to see any rights of CU to be removed during this next year. There are decisions that affect this next year( even some that could potentially affect CU after this year although something wacky would have to occur for that to happen).
I thought the ruling was fair. There was no declaration that the 2 were the only board members nor was there a declaration that the 10 were board members either. But the pac-12 can still make decisions that will need to be made as long as they are unanimous decisions by all 12. Just don't call those meetings "board meetings".
The bigger questions will be answered with more litigation....or negotiation. Eventually.
If the departing 10 were trying to change bylaws and to amend budgets to help offset their changeover costs, the judge should be blocking that. Doesn't feel fair. Trying to be somewhat objective here even if I'm going against CU's best interests.
That won't be happening now unless all 12 say to do it. The ruling will effectively change the bylaws to make all decisions unanimous by all 12. At least temporarily.
The biggest question that appears to be something they will have to tackle next is if all 12 schools need to be part of the litigation. Currently it is just OSU and WSU vs the PAC 12 corporate entity. If all 12 schools also have to\want to\ or need to be involved, will drag this out for a bit before they even get into deciding things like 'notice' and who are the board members. All subjects that were touched on in the hearing, but no real indication which way the judge would rule on those items.
Yeah. I expected the judge to tap the brakes until aspects of the case were settled.
It's like when a band has most of its members leave and they're the most acclaimed ones. Sometimes that means the end of the band. Sometimes that means that whoever doesn't leave gets to keep touring under the band's name. It will be surprising to me if the ruling is that the departing members can't vote to dissolve things in a way that equally divides current assets while preventing any future production of anything under the name. But you never know.
Its the departing band members asking the ones who are left to sell the PA system to help pay for the defectors to leave -- that's getting me
If they actually said they were going to use the money to pay entrance fees, that's like pissing on a guy after he's already down for the count. I kind of respect that, but it's definitely sh*tty.
On a side note, that scene in the Office where Stanley is laughing his ass off is iconic.
Gotta be honest, attitudes like this is why the Pac-12, inarguably the hottest CFB conference in the nation this year, is dying. I guarantee you the number one pusher of this stance is USC, but followed closely by UCLA, Stanford, Cal, and Washington. This "we're so much more important than everyone else" crap is sickening.
When a large enough portion of a conference can't get enough of the smell of their own farts, it's bound to get ****ed up eventually. We just didn't know how ****ed up or when. I am going to miss the Pac-12, but I'm not going to miss the pointy-haired ****wits at the above schools.
I know I'm kinda rooting against our own interests right now, but I hope OSU and WSU make out like the jilted wife who gets the house, the car, and the kids.
Should just be “Berkeley Bears”
I have never understood why they don't go with California. Way more impressive sounding.
Reminds me of when CU spent a year and lots of money doing a rebrand and logo consolidation effort and basically just chose our existing logo, those consultants were geniuses.