The "UN"-Official SDSU to the Pac thread.

[Willie Cee]

This is credited to an AM poster (who is obviously legally trained) I have seen this theory and it makes sense out of all that has transpired in the last few days. 

Courts are very reluctant to enforce contracts that say, "If you breach this contract, you must pay the other party $X." They strongly prefer that you prove that you suffered a certain amount of damages as a result of the breach and then sue for the amount of your losses. That's why schools almost never pay the full exit fee specified in a contract when they leave a conference. Maybe the contract says that the exit free is $17 million, but unless the conference can prove that they will lose $17 million because a school left the conference, a court will probably not enforce that contract.

[Pelado]

On 6/20/2023 at 2:46 PM, Headbutt said:

Well, thanks in advance for our paltry 1/11th of that cash you're not getting. 

Might be slightly more than that since Hawaii might not get a full share.

[East Coast Aztec]

On 6/20/2023 at 1:46 PM, Headbutt said:

Well, thanks in advance for our paltry 1/11th of that cash you're not getting. 

Hey, as a team who picked up an at-large bid, you can at least say your team is one of the few that actually added performance revenues to the conference coffers!  Some of the loudest voices in these threads haven't done it, but Colorado State is no welfare queen.  

[East Coast Aztec]

On 6/20/2023 at 1:55 PM, Willie Cee said:

This is credited to an AM poster (who is obviously legally trained) I have seen this theory and it makes sense out of all that has transpired in the last few days. 

Courts are very reluctant to enforce contracts that say, "If you breach this contract, you must pay the other party $X." They strongly prefer that you prove that you suffered a certain amount of damages as a result of the breach and then sue for the amount of your losses. That's why schools almost never pay the full exit fee specified in a contract when they leave a conference. Maybe the contract says that the exit free is $17 million, but unless the conference can prove that they will lose $17 million because a school left the conference, a court will probably not enforce that contract.

Then why specify in the first place?  Wouldn't it just read "pay for approximated damages" if it is going to be negotiable anyways?  Seems strange, but since legalese lives in the gray, perhaps that is just the way.

[Spaztecs]

On 6/20/2023 at 2:46 PM, Headbutt said:

Well, thanks in advance for our paltry 1/11th of that cash you're not getting. 

Six mil back into the Conference coffers this year. Six more next year. Plus, ~10 mil in MM credits. CSU' s sharewill help pay down some Canvas debt or payoff the buyouts of the last two FB Coaches.

[Gonzagafan2021]

So what happens to San Diego State?

[RSF]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:15 PM, Gonzagafan2021 said:

So what happens to San Diego State?

They're moving to Vegas...

[East Coast Aztec]

On 6/20/2023 at 2:21 PM, RSF said:

They're moving to Vegas...

We already have Viejas East, so at least basketball will be acclimated...

[VandalPride97]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:55 PM, Willie Cee said:

This is credited to an AM poster (who is obviously legally trained) I have seen this theory and it makes sense out of all that has transpired in the last few days. 

Courts are very reluctant to enforce contracts that say, "If you breach this contract, you must pay the other party $X." They strongly prefer that you prove that you suffered a certain amount of damages as a result of the breach and then sue for the amount of your losses. That's why schools almost never pay the full exit fee specified in a contract when they leave a conference. Maybe the contract says that the exit free is $17 million, but unless the conference can prove that they will lose $17 million because a school left the conference, a court will probably not enforce that contract.

Liquidated damages are easier to get if the parties agreed to it at a time when damages could not be calculated and if they're reasonably close to the damages sustained.  I find that Courts usually grant them and tell the losing side "you agreed to it, you pay it."  Getting the $17 million is reasonable in my mind, but double that will probably get shot down or trimmed as excessive or arbitrary.

One thing I will say about this board is that the flaccid positions taken by the conference in the past has bred this mindset that "well, it's just going to be litigated and we'll settle in the middle."  F that, it set a bad precedent.  Had the conference played hardball, as they appear to be doing now, it would be much more cut and dry.

If I were counsel to the conference, I'd say "you pay $17 million.  You can do it in 2-3 payments, but you have to agree to a consent judgment if you miss a payment."  Then, if they miss a payment, you enter judgment, garnish the bank accounts and walk home with the cash.  

 

[SalinasSpartan]

On 6/20/2023 at 12:21 PM, soupslam1 said:

I hope you have that much left after the PAC puts the squeeze on the Aztecs portion of their TV contract. 

Things can always change, but that isn’t how the Pac-12 treated Utah. IIRC, they got full shares in year 3.

[Pelado]

On 6/20/2023 at 7:00 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

Things can always change, but that isn’t how the Pac-12 treated Utah. IIRC, they got full shares in year 3.

Sure, but Utah is "special".

[utenation]

On 6/19/2023 at 4:39 PM, 818SUDSFan said:

ASU won't be going to the B12 because of the percentage of its students and football players who are from SoCal. Utah won't be going to the B12 because Pac membership has been one of the best things to ever happen to that school. Also, Oregon would be of no benefit to the B1G except to enhance its football image and the addition of Maryland and Rutgers is ample proof that football quality is not a prerequisite for membership and, as I pointed out above, the B1G presidents are too smart not to wonder whether UO wouldn't be their next Nebraska.

Utah wants the current P12 to stay together. If it blows up(which I don’t think it does short term) we will go to the B12 in a heartbeat.  We’ve earned a good paycheck no matter what. 
 

We aren’t going to take a $20-30 million haircut in revenue to stay in a conference that no longer serves the purpose of when we joined. 
 

We have a great AD and a newer president that follows his lead. We won’t be left out in the cold. Our football program is very valuable. 

[utenation]

On 6/20/2023 at 7:00 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

Things can always change, but that isn’t how the Pac-12 treated Utah. IIRC, they got full shares in year 3.

And that was a fair deal for us at the time. 

[soupslam1]

On 6/20/2023 at 7:00 PM, SalinasSpartan said:

Things can always change, but that isn’t how the Pac-12 treated Utah. IIRC, they got full shares in year 3.

Yeah, that was when there was equal sharing with all member schools. UW and UO now think they are worth more to the conference and are talking about getting a greater distribution to sign a GOR. SDSU being the last one in will likely get the smallest share. And now with nowhere else to go they are stuck with whatever the PAC wants to give them. 

It was dumb of them to send a letter announcing their intent to withdraw and ask for an extension plus other concessions. They should have just privately asked for the extension. 

[GoDogs22]

SDSU knows that they have no leverage, and they really tried to force the hand of both the MWC and PAC by sending their letter. It's gonna blow up, and be hilarious all the way.

[Super six]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:39 PM, VandalPride97 said:

Liquidated damages are easier to get if the parties agreed to it at a time when damages could not be calculated and if they're reasonably close to the damages sustained.  I find that Courts usually grant them and tell the losing side "you agreed to it, you pay it."  Getting the $17 million is reasonable in my mind, but double that will probably get shot down or trimmed as excessive or arbitrary.

One thing I will say about this board is that the flaccid positions taken by the conference in the past has bred this mindset that "well, it's just going to be litigated and we'll settle in the middle."  F that, it set a bad precedent.  Had the conference played hardball, as they appear to be doing now, it would be much more cut and dry.

If I were counsel to the conference, I'd say "you pay $17 million.  You can do it in 2-3 payments, but you have to agree to a consent judgment if you miss a payment."  Then, if they miss a payment, you enter judgment, garnish the bank accounts and walk home with the cash.  

 

If it were Boise you would ask for the 34M.

[utenation]

On 6/20/2023 at 11:11 PM, soupslam1 said:

Yeah, that was when there was equal sharing with all member schools. UW and UO now think they are worth more to the conference and are talking about getting a greater distribution to sign a GOR. SDSU being the last one in will likely get the smallest share. And now with nowhere else to go they are stuck with whatever the PAC wants to give them. 

It was dumb of them to send a letter announcing their intent to withdraw and ask for an extension plus other concessions. They should have just privately asked for the extension. 

There is nothing other than rumors that Oregon and Washington want unequal revenue. 
 

Media rumors hold as much water as a fishing net right now. 

[SalinasSpartan]

On 6/20/2023 at 10:07 PM, utenation said:

And that was a fair deal for us at the time. 

Especially compared to how the B1G treated their new additions. I think it took Nebraska and Rutgers like 8 years to get full shares. 

[SalinasSpartan]

On 6/20/2023 at 10:11 PM, soupslam1 said:

Yeah, that was when there was equal sharing with all member schools. UW and UO now think they are worth more to the conference and are talking about getting a greater distribution to sign a GOR. SDSU being the last one in will likely get the smallest share. And now with nowhere else to go they are stuck with whatever the PAC wants to give them. 

It was dumb of them to send a letter announcing their intent to withdraw and ask for an extension plus other concessions. They should have just privately asked for the extension. 

I think SDSU/SMU will get full shares within 3-4 years.

[soupslam1]

On 6/20/2023 at 11:19 PM, utenation said:

There is nothing other than rumors that Oregon and Washington want unequal revenue. 
 

Media rumors hold as much water as a fishing net right now. 

They allegedly have a TV deal already. The hold up in signing it is distribution among members. With the LA schools gone UW and UO are the PAC’s most valuable members and they know it. They also have the leverage. The TV deal will shrink by half if they don’t agree to it.