TexanMark
Tailgate Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 24,938
- Like
- 46,521
Agreed...the blog is on hold for now. I'm definitely updating Syracuse in a few weeks...I should have time after I retire to build one for the ACC.
ACC vs. Maryland: Mediation Must be Before July 10, 2014
- Thread starter arbitragegls
- Start date
texascpa
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 12,668
- Like
- 18,888
Are using a second handle: Hokie Mark?
Hokie Mark
2nd String
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 662
- Like
- 1,086
New season of blogging will begin in August. Check back around the 18th...
... no, Texan Mark and I are not the same people. I'm the good-looking one!
SU2NASA
All American
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 6,937
- Like
- 8,472
New season of blogging will begin in August. Check back around the 18th...
... no, Texan Mark and I are not the same people. I'm the good-looking one!
We all know that I'm the best-looking poster on these boards. Especially compared to that island of misfit toys called the basketball board.
TexanMark
Tailgate Guru
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 24,938
- Like
- 46,521
Hey Best looking poster...please send me your contact info for Wake Forest tickets...Thx
Toga
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,672
- Like
- 71,952
I can't wait til tomorrow cuz I get better looking every day.
SU2NASA
All American
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 6,937
- Like
- 8,472
HtownOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 12,149
- Like
- 15,432
The judge ordered mediation. It does not equal the parties agreed on anything. UMD still wants out without paying a price. The ACC still wants $52+MM.
Hurry up and wait.
Hurry up and wait.
Hokie Mark
2nd String
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2013
- Messages
- 662
- Like
- 1,086
https://news.yahoo.com/video/acc-vs-maryland-lawsuit-north-170238947.html
Apparently Maryland is trying again to move the case to Federal Court.
Apparently Maryland is trying again to move the case to Federal Court.
HtownOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 12,149
- Like
- 15,432
It's amazing that Maryland can just now get around to seeking Federal court.
I think if the courts agree that UMD is part of the Maryland State government then the courts would have to rule that UMD has contracted on behalf of the State government and thereby created a valid contract with other States (NC, SC, VA, PA, FL , GA, KY) with the ACC merely being the forum for the contract between the States.
Additionally, I am not sure the B1G, or any other conference, wants UMD to win this point. If so, every exit fee and GOR is non-binding and a waste of time, at least on the State Universities. I am surprised the B1G has allowed this go drag on this long. Another point for the B1G to weigh is that if this goes to Federal Court, the discovery will probably be much broader as now the States may be included to determine any political gamesmanship by politicians and/or bureaucrats. There has to be a trail, but the BoT's and Big Donor lists are highly likely intertwined with the State government.
Gotta love stupidity. Just pay up, Maryland.
[quote"]https://news.yahoo.com/video/acc-vs-maryland-lawsuit-north-170238947.html
Apparently Maryland is trying again to move the case to Federal Court.[/quote]
What do you mean Maryland is filing for diversity now that the NC court has jurisdiction? I thought Frozen owned me KaiserUEO in that earlier thread on this subject. Maryland's 30 day clock for filing to move the case to federal court didn't start until their appeals were ruled .However, I was owned so I don't know anything.
Apparently Maryland is trying again to move the case to Federal Court.[/quote]
What do you mean Maryland is filing for diversity now that the NC court has jurisdiction? I thought Frozen owned me KaiserUEO in that earlier thread on this subject. Maryland's 30 day clock for filing to move the case to federal court didn't start until their appeals were ruled .However, I was owned so I don't know anything.
I agree it sucks, but Maryland ALWAYS had diversity in their back pocket when they appealed the lawsuit to begin with. Their 30 day clock wouldn't start until the courts deny their claims. Once Maryland couldn't get out of the lawsuit in NC it makes to much freaking sense for them to move it to federal court. In NC, state court judges are ELECTED and are all UNC/Wake/Duke law school alums. Why the hell would UMD lawyers want to try a case with elected judges in an area FULL of ACC fans and atleast federal court judges are appointed by POTUS and tend to be way more Conservative in NC than state court judge are.
arbitragegls
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,340
- Like
- 1,746
Well stated...the mediation did not end well as the ACC believes, and I agree, that Univ of Maryland is on the run--ACC should (never a sure thing) win this in court. The action today comes off the mediation that ended with neither side wanting to bend. The Stealth side whispers believe that a settlement in the range of $30,000,000+ will be negotiated...this is showing just have bankrupt Univ of Maryland is insofar as athletic $$$$$$(in a big whole that the B1G $$ will not bail out for a number of years).
It's Good to be 'Cuse!! The order of the 'Cuse Orange..
Btstimpy
Scout Team
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2012
- Messages
- 477
- Like
- 295
After August 1, when the 30 days to pay listed in the ACC bylaws completes, would the ACC be able to file for a judge to order an injunction that Maryland not be permitted to be shown on any properties of Disney, Comcast, Newscorp, Vicom, or BTN until this debt is paid and get it while this case runs its course? That would seem most appropriate in this case. This is as deadbeat as it gets.
I'd guess the Big 10 would love for Maryland to win this as does the SEC and PAC 12 since they don't have any penalty for leaving.
HtownOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 12,149
- Like
- 15,432
From a UMD perspective, I agree with their move. However, they should have played this card early on. If they were claiming Sovereignty, they could have avoided the NC courts (which would probably have placed the NC case on hold pending Federal Court decision, much like the MD courts did for the NC courts).
Regardless, the B1G cannot want UMD to win this argument as it invalidates any and all contracts between the schools (read: PSU could leave the B1G without harm - and still own a share of the BTN - while moving to the ACC and similar moves by other schools). Any narrow tailoring of a decision that preserves B1G/BTN deals will work the same for ACC, SEC, PAC 12 and Big 12, as well as the lesser conferences.
HtownOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 12,149
- Like
- 15,432
The same ruling would apply to GOR's and any contract the State (or Arm of the State) wishes to negate.
The BTN would lose big if Michigan, tOSU or PSU, possibly lose big with the loss of Indiana or UNL. The GOR would not apply and the schools could move as they wish, even retain share rights (obviously, the remaining schools would file suit, declare the GOR that the leaving school had a share in as invalid -exercising their own sovereignty - but this would cause all sorts of headaches and would not stop moves). The purpose of contracts is to avoid headaches, not create more headaches.
HtownOrange
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 12,149
- Like
- 15,432
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nc-court-of-appeals/1650457.html
Under NC law, the court stated the following:
"In the context of the sovereign immunity doctrine, our Supreme Court has used public policy to effectively waive the State's sovereign immunity in causes of action grounded in contract. Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 320, 222 S.E.2d 412, 423–24 (1976). In making this decision, the Smith Court was moved by the following public policy considerations:
(1) To deny the party who has performed his obligation under a contract the right to sue the state when it defaults is to take his property without compensation and thus to deny him due process; (2) To hold that the state may arbitrarily avoid its obligation under a contract after having induced the other party to change his position or to expend time and money in the performance of his obligations, or in preparing to perform them, would be judicial sanction of the highest type of governmental tyranny; (3) To attribute to the General Assembly the intent to retain to the state the right, should expedience seem to make it desirable, to breach its obligation at the expense of its citizens imputes to that body “bad faith and shoddiness” foreign to a democratic government; (4) A citizen's petition to the legislature for relief from the state's breach of contract is an unsatisfactory and frequently a totally inadequate remedy for an injured party; and (5) The courts are a proper forum in which claims against the state may be presented and decided upon known principles."
I am NOT a North Carolina attorney. Reading the above leads me to believe that under NC law, the courts will uphold contracts unless there is some other reason not to do so. I presume other states have similar rulings and reasoning, if we have any Maryland attorneys, their comments would be very much appreciated.
Under NC law, the court stated the following:
"In the context of the sovereign immunity doctrine, our Supreme Court has used public policy to effectively waive the State's sovereign immunity in causes of action grounded in contract. Smith v. State, 289 N.C. 303, 320, 222 S.E.2d 412, 423–24 (1976). In making this decision, the Smith Court was moved by the following public policy considerations:
(1) To deny the party who has performed his obligation under a contract the right to sue the state when it defaults is to take his property without compensation and thus to deny him due process; (2) To hold that the state may arbitrarily avoid its obligation under a contract after having induced the other party to change his position or to expend time and money in the performance of his obligations, or in preparing to perform them, would be judicial sanction of the highest type of governmental tyranny; (3) To attribute to the General Assembly the intent to retain to the state the right, should expedience seem to make it desirable, to breach its obligation at the expense of its citizens imputes to that body “bad faith and shoddiness” foreign to a democratic government; (4) A citizen's petition to the legislature for relief from the state's breach of contract is an unsatisfactory and frequently a totally inadequate remedy for an injured party; and (5) The courts are a proper forum in which claims against the state may be presented and decided upon known principles."
I am NOT a North Carolina attorney. Reading the above leads me to believe that under NC law, the courts will uphold contracts unless there is some other reason not to do so. I presume other states have similar rulings and reasoning, if we have any Maryland attorneys, their comments would be very much appreciated.
JrodCuse
All Conference
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2011
- Messages
- 2,513
- Like
- 4,735
Out of curiosity, why didn't Maryland go to the ACC and request a "loan"? I know the ACC has coffers because they take a % of the league payouts. They could easily have loaned funds to UMD, and then made it a 20 or 30 year loan and reduced their portion of the payout by that amount annually. Maybe that sets a bad precedent though who knows? But I bet if you could ask Swofford off the record if he would rather have Maryland in the ACC via a loan or Maryland in the BiG he would pick loaning funds to Maryland every day.
Huh?[/quote]
I don't want to get into a pissing match my comment was more directed at Kaiser for trying stick it to me without knowing the law rather than you in our thread weeks ago.
My point then was that Maryland's 30 days to request moving the case to Federal Court didn't start until their motion for improper jurisdiction were decided. Maryland had the diversity option in their back pocket the entire time those motions were filed. This case if it went the distance was never going to be decided in a NC State Court if NC was established as having the proper jurisdiction which it has as decided by the courts then Maryland was always going to file for federal courts within the 30 days after that ruling.
I mean I highly doubt the ACC would do this because it would be a little extreme. Maryland is going to pay an exit fee either 20 million, 52 million, or a negotiated amount. I wouldn't do this because Maryland has had about 35 million withheld from them by the ACC and that could be credited as atleast partial payment I don't know if the bylaws state the withdrawal payment must be done all at once. When Syracuse left the Big East we paid 2.5 million of the 5 million to withdraw with our notice. Then Syracuse sent another 5 million to the Big East before they left as the amount to leave was 7.5 million.
If you didn't I apologize I thought we talked about the UMD lawsuit on the bball board.
