ragtimejoe Posted July 4 Share Posted July 4 While arguing they shouldn't have to pay a buyout. You guys are idiots. Lmao. Oh, and UNR, your beat writer is awesome. https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter-daily/week-in-1000-words-the-pac-12s-new-punitive-exit-fees-are-the-height-of-hypocrisy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocket Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 I'm hoping the MWC has the last laugh and sticks to their guns. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quickdraw Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 The MWC IS GETTING PAID! It’s just a matter of how much. September 9th we go into court to attempt to have the lawsuits thrown out. I doubt that happens. I imagine that at that time the official dates get set to hear the case. People keep saying that this will be settled before then. I don’t see it. So let’s get to court and get this thing over with. I’m still behind taking those signed contracts out for a spin and see what happens. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragtimejoe Posted August 11 Author Share Posted August 11 Maybe we can just submit wsu/osu's docket when they were victorious against the pac12 defectors which upheld bylaws/contracts/buyouts forcing a favorable settlement in their direction. The case file should work for both the MWC vs the pac and vs the defectors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quickdraw Posted August 11 Share Posted August 11 On 8/11/2025 at 9:34 AM, ragtimejoe said: Maybe we can just submit wsu/osu's docket when they were victorious against the pac12 defectors which upheld bylaws/contracts/buyouts forcing a favorable settlement in their direction. The case file should work for both the MWC vs the pac and vs the defectors. The current bylaws were written specifically for the possibility of exactly what happened. If the lawyers left any room in there that can be exploited then shame on us. I don’t think that happened. So far the only thing I’ve heard stated against us is that we weren’t nice to the 5 over the past year. That won’t be much of a defense against signed contracts developed and approved by these same schools. Then you add on that these 3 suing us were ready to inforce this same contract against suds 2 years ago and they have signed very similar contracts with the PAC. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
415hawaiiboy Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 On 8/11/2025 at 2:27 PM, quickdraw said: Then you add on that these 3 suing us were ready to inforce this same contract against suds 2 years ago and they have signed very similar contracts with the PAC. I call this the “house of cards” argument that gets the judge to show their cards which way they are leaning, because the story of one party just crumbles. Two civil trials, one my own (I won) and another I was told about - this house of cards led to the judge becoming agitated with one side (the other side just watched and stays quiet). In closing arguments or before even, the judge will ask Plaintiffs why they signed a similar contract with the PAC 12. That is the house of cards. $22MM x 5 = $110MM for exit fees alone. It is comical and predictable. I’m more interested in the poaching fees case. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragtimejoe Posted August 14 Author Share Posted August 14 The other component of this not talked about much is precedent. I guarantee the acc is watching. If the judge allows even a 50% reduction in exit penalties, it will send shockwaves through cfb realignment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosegreen Posted August 14 Share Posted August 14 On 8/14/2025 at 5:24 AM, ragtimejoe said: The other component of this not talked about much is precedent. I guarantee the acc is watching. If the judge allows even a 50% reduction in exit penalties, it will send shockwaves through cfb realignment. It would also make the Npac less stable, if buyouts are not 100 percent enforceable. Then the Npac is just a temporary home for a couple schools, namely Oregon State and Wazzu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWC Posted August 24 Share Posted August 24 On 7/4/2025 at 5:50 AM, ragtimejoe said: While arguing they shouldn't have to pay a buyout. You guys are idiots. Lmao. Oh, and UNR, your beat writer is awesome. https://nevadasportsnet.com/newsletter-daily/week-in-1000-words-the-pac-12s-new-punitive-exit-fees-are-the-height-of-hypocrisy I don't think the Pac is arguing there should be no buyout. I think the issue is the amount. I cannot think of a team paying the full buyout to leave a conference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragtimejoe Posted August 25 Author Share Posted August 25 On 8/24/2025 at 2:05 PM, MWC said: I don't think the Pac is arguing there should be no buyout. I think the issue is the amount. I cannot think of a team paying the full buyout to leave a conference. Let's say the MWC tv contract is 3 mill less per team. Multiply by 10 teams = 30 mill per year. Multiply by typical 5 year contract and they should be on the hook for 150 mill. They're actually getting a discount by paying full exir penalty in that scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWC Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 On 8/24/2025 at 7:18 PM, ragtimejoe said: Let's say the MWC tv contract is 3 mill less per team. Multiply by 10 teams = 30 mill per year. Multiply by typical 5 year contract and they should be on the hook for 150 mill. They're actually getting a discount by paying full exir penalty in that scenario. The precedent for teams leaving a conference is not your model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragtimejoe Posted August 25 Author Share Posted August 25 On 8/25/2025 at 2:03 PM, MWC said: The precedent for teams leaving a conference is not your model. However, in this case, we should have a decent argument for damages. The pac TV contract vs the mwc TV contract. The difference is clearly "damages" associated with their exit. Had those teams remained, that is likely the value of the TV contract. The MWC asked for 90 mill which, if rumors of TV value are true, is in line with damages. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWC Posted August 25 Share Posted August 25 On 8/25/2025 at 3:11 PM, ragtimejoe said: However, in this case, we should have a decent argument for damages. The pac TV contract vs the mwc TV contract. The difference is clearly "damages" associated with their exit. Had those teams remained, that is likely the value of the TV contract. The MWC asked for 90 mill which, if rumors of TV value are true, is in line with damages. Yeah, I get your point. I might argue losing Texas and OU had a bigger financial Impact. If you went by your model, it seems it would really be tough for any team to change conferences. Just my thoughts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragtimejoe Posted August 25 Author Share Posted August 25 On 8/25/2025 at 4:36 PM, MWC said: Yeah, I get your point. I might argue losing Texas and OU had a bigger financial Impact. If you went by your model, it seems it would really be tough for any team to change conferences. Just my thoughts. I honestly don't recall all the settlements from a conference move. Will this be the first to test the contract all the way through trial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
