The ACC and UMD were back in court yesterday... | Syracusefan.com

The ACC and UMD were back in court yesterday...

CuseLegacy

Moderator
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
95,406
Like
150,208
Maryland says ACC has created budget 'hole' by withholding shared revenues

Conference says it's trying to ensure UM pays $52 million exit fee before move to Big Ten



By Jeff Barker, The Baltimore Sun
9:22 p.m. EDT, May 23, 2013
UPPER MARLBORO ——
An attorney representing the University of Maryland argued Thursday that the Atlantic Coast Conference has left the college's athletic department with a vast budget "hole" by improperly withholding millions of dollars in shared conference revenues after the school decided to join the Big Ten.
"They're taking it out of our pocket, and we don't have it," Maryland Assistant Attorney General John Kuchno said during a nearly three-hour hearing in Prince George's County Circuit Court.


He said the ACC is "trying to punish Maryland and send a message to Maryland" and also to "send a message to all of its other institutions" who might have been considering jumping conferences.
Attorneys for the ACC countered that by withholding funds the conference is merely trying to ensure that Maryland pays the conference's $52 million exit fee. In December, the ACC withheld a distribution of about $3 million owed to Maryland as what it called an "offset" against the $52 million fee.
"The bottom line is, they don't want to pay the $52 million," James D. Smeallie, an attorney for the ACC, told the court.
The hearing came in Maryland's lawsuit against the ACC alleging that the exit fee is anti-competitive and should not be enforced. The ACC has moved to dismiss the complaint, and Judge John Paul Davey ended Thursday's hearing by saying he would consider the arguments and issue a written opinion "as soon as possible."
Maryland President Wallace D. Loh, athletic director Kevin Anderson and University System of Maryland Chancellor William E. Kirwan attended the hearing, sitting side by side in the wood-paneled courtroom's front row.
Maryland's suit is part of a two-state legal tangle that ensued after the school — one of the ACC's original members — announced in November 2012 that it was departing for the Big Ten, effective in July 2014.
Maryland, which says it has been excluded from ACC meetings and decisions, has not provided the ACC official notice of its departure.
"Maryland has not yet filed an official notice and need not do so before Aug. 15, 2013, in order to join the Big Ten Conference in 2014," Kuchno said in a motion filed recently with the court. "Maryland is not presently subject to the Withdrawal Penalty (regardless of its enforceability) and remains an ACC member with full rights and privileges," the motion said.
After Maryland announced at a news conference that it was leaving, the ACC filed suit asking a North Carolina court to declare that Maryland is subject to the full exit fee — $52,266,342. That suit is ongoing.
Smeallie said Thursday that Loh had approved of a withdrawal fee — albeit a smaller one of about $20 million — in a September 2011 meeting of ACC presidents. But Kuchno said that meeting didn't prove that Maryland considered "that it was a satisfactory penalty. We will contest those facts."
The exit fee was raised last year to $52 million. Maryland and Florida State voted against the increase.
Smeallie also argued that Maryland later consented to an even more "onerous" arrangement by agreeing — as all Big Ten members do — to grant the conference their media rights. The ACC announced similar arrangements with its present and future members — but not Maryland — last month.
Kuchno, a Maryland graduate and Terps sports fan, told the judge the exit fee was not enforceable. He said the ACC violated its constitutional provisions by not submitting the fee as an amendment in writing to its Constitution and Bylaws Committee for review, and not circulating the plan to members at least 15 days before the meeting.
Kuchno said the ACC, by its actions, kept other schools from leaving the conference. Besides Maryland, "no team has moved. That's an effect on competition," he said.


Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-terps-acc-hearing-0523-20130523,0,7872265.story#ixzz2UD4JRxn1
 
Maryland says ACC has created budget 'hole' by withholding shared revenues

Conference says it's trying to ensure UM pays $52 million exit fee before move to Big Ten



By Jeff Barker, The Baltimore Sun
9:22 p.m. EDT, May 23, 2013
UPPER MARLBORO ——
An attorney representing the University of Maryland argued Thursday that the Atlantic Coast Conference has left the college's athletic department with a vast budget "hole" by improperly withholding millions of dollars in shared conference revenues after the school decided to join the Big Ten.
"They're taking it out of our pocket, and we don't have it," Maryland Assistant Attorney General John Kuchno said during a nearly three-hour hearing in Prince George's County Circuit Court.


He said the ACC is "trying to punish Maryland and send a message to Maryland" and also to "send a message to all of its other institutions" who might have been considering jumping conferences.
Attorneys for the ACC countered that by withholding funds the conference is merely trying to ensure that Maryland pays the conference's $52 million exit fee. In December, the ACC withheld a distribution of about $3 million owed to Maryland as what it called an "offset" against the $52 million fee.
"The bottom line is, they don't want to pay the $52 million," James D. Smeallie, an attorney for the ACC, told the court.
The hearing came in Maryland's lawsuit against the ACC alleging that the exit fee is anti-competitive and should not be enforced. The ACC has moved to dismiss the complaint, and Judge John Paul Davey ended Thursday's hearing by saying he would consider the arguments and issue a written opinion "as soon as possible."
Maryland President Wallace D. Loh, athletic director Kevin Anderson and University System of Maryland Chancellor William E. Kirwan attended the hearing, sitting side by side in the wood-paneled courtroom's front row.
Maryland's suit is part of a two-state legal tangle that ensued after the school — one of the ACC's original members — announced in November 2012 that it was departing for the Big Ten, effective in July 2014.
Maryland, which says it has been excluded from ACC meetings and decisions, has not provided the ACC official notice of its departure.
"Maryland has not yet filed an official notice and need not do so before Aug. 15, 2013, in order to join the Big Ten Conference in 2014," Kuchno said in a motion filed recently with the court. "Maryland is not presently subject to the Withdrawal Penalty (regardless of its enforceability) and remains an ACC member with full rights and privileges," the motion said.
After Maryland announced at a news conference that it was leaving, the ACC filed suit asking a North Carolina court to declare that Maryland is subject to the full exit fee — $52,266,342. That suit is ongoing.
Smeallie said Thursday that Loh had approved of a withdrawal fee — albeit a smaller one of about $20 million — in a September 2011 meeting of ACC presidents. But Kuchno said that meeting didn't prove that Maryland considered "that it was a satisfactory penalty. We will contest those facts."
The exit fee was raised last year to $52 million. Maryland and Florida State voted against the increase.
Smeallie also argued that Maryland later consented to an even more "onerous" arrangement by agreeing — as all Big Ten members do — to grant the conference their media rights. The ACC announced similar arrangements with its present and future members — but not Maryland — last month.
Kuchno, a Maryland graduate and Terps sports fan, told the judge the exit fee was not enforceable. He said the ACC violated its constitutional provisions by not submitting the fee as an amendment in writing to its Constitution and Bylaws Committee for review, and not circulating the plan to members at least 15 days before the meeting.
Kuchno said the ACC, by its actions, kept other schools from leaving the conference. Besides Maryland, "no team has moved. That's an effect on competition," he said.


Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/terps/bs-sp-terps-acc-hearing-0523-20130523,0,7872265.story#ixzz2UD4JRxn1
Dear Judge: I thought intercollegiate athletics was supposed to be about character building, team play and sportsmanship; not economic competition

Sent from my SCH-I200 using Tapatalk 2
 
The argument is very weak since the University of Maryland signed an agreement with the Big Ten Conference. So while they haven't given notice to the ACC their public actions are different. Maryland will lose the lawsuit on these grounds the only chance Maryland has to win is on procedural grounds. If it is proven Swofford didn't send the change in bylaws 15 days before the vote on the increased exit fee from 20 million to 52 million then Maryland will argue the change didn't follow proper procedure and shouldn't be binding. However, we won't know if the ACC followed proper procedure until their response is made public and we can see if they followed their own bylaws to amend the exit fee.
 
Maryland's suit is part of a two-state legal tangle that ensued after the school — one of the ACC's original members — announced in November 2012 that it was departing for the Big Ten, effective in July 2014.
Maryland, which says it has been excluded from ACC meetings and decisions, has not provided the ACC official notice of its departure. "Maryland has not yet filed an official notice and need not do so before Aug. 15, 2013, in order to join the Big Ten Conference in 2014," Kuchno said in a motion filed recently with the court. "Maryland is not presently subject to the Withdrawal Penalty (regardless of its enforceability) and remains an ACC member with full rights and privileges," the motion said.

Wouldn't it be a B1G kick in the ass if MD were to stick with the ACC?
 
Wouldn't it be a B1G kick in the ass if MD were to stick with the ACC?
For Maryland, yes, either way, the B1G holds their future TV rights for a while:

"Smeallie also argued that Maryland later consented to an even more "onerous" arrangement by agreeing — as all Big Ten members do — to grant the conference their media rights. The ACC announced similar arrangements with its present and future members — but not Maryland — last month."
 
The argument is very weak since the University of Maryland signed an agreement with the Big Ten Conference. So while they haven't given notice to the ACC their public actions are different. Maryland will lose the lawsuit on these grounds the only chance Maryland has to win is on procedural grounds. If it is proven Swofford didn't send the change in bylaws 15 days before the vote on the increased exit fee from 20 million to 52 million then Maryland will argue the change didn't follow proper procedure and shouldn't be binding. However, we won't know if the ACC followed proper procedure until their response is made public and we can see if they followed their own bylaws to amend the exit fee.

This will be interesting. It can certainly be argued that MD certainly gave constructive notice when they signed with the B1G. Whether or not the judge will care about the procedural issue is a jump ball but I am betting he won't dismiss because of that. Gonna be interesting!
 
The argument is very weak since the University of Maryland signed an agreement with the Big Ten Conference. So while they haven't given notice to the ACC their public actions are different. Maryland will lose the lawsuit on these grounds the only chance Maryland has to win is on procedural grounds. If it is proven Swofford didn't send the change in bylaws 15 days before the vote on the increased exit fee from 20 million to 52 million then Maryland will argue the change didn't follow proper procedure and shouldn't be binding. However, we won't know if the ACC followed proper procedure until their response is made public and we can see if they followed their own bylaws to amend the exit fee.

Have to agree on that. Their public actions indicate a university association different than what currently exists on paper with the ACC.
 
This will be interesting. It can certainly be argued that MD certainly gave constructive notice when they signed with the B1G. Whether or not the judge will care about the procedural issue is a jump ball but I am betting he won't dismiss because of that. Gonna be interesting!


What's more is that by denying they have tendered their notice to leave the ACC, they actually strengthen the ACC's claim that they owe the full exit fee. Their best argument would have been to state the new exit fee was too high and they were forced to look elsewhere, found a suitor and gave constructive notice, rendering the $20MM exit fee appropriate. However, they did not argue this.
 
ACC can say that Maryland was already in red, despite withholding after conference change - contrary to their main argument. $3 mil was not going to balance their athletic budget
 
How could they be so stupid to have assumed that the 53M would just go away? Maybe it will; but what sane institution would risk everything on a throw of the dice?
 
How could they be so stupid to have assumed that the 53M would just go away? Maybe it will; but what sane institution would risk everything on a throw of the dice?

Maryland never assumed that the exit fee would go away. They freely agreed to the previous $20MM exit fee and will at a minimum pay that amount. Thus, the ACC's withholding is probably more sound than may appear. As to the larger exit fee, Maryland is attempting to force a negotiated settlement, and there is a good probability that they two sides will reach an agreement. Generally, most civil cases resolve via negotiation, more than 90%, odds of a settlement are very good. Any savings in excess of their legal fees is a boon for Maryland, which is already in the red and will be further in the red with the exit fee, whether $20MM, $53MM or somewhere in between.
 
They are risking a very big hit. Suppose they cut the excess 33 million in half. That would be an extra 16.5 million hit, or a total hit of 36.5 million. You would think that they have the Geico made of money man in house. How can this make financial sense?
 
They are risking a very big hit. Suppose they cut the excess 33 million in half. That would be an extra 16.5 million hit, or a total hit of 36.5 million. You would think that they have the Geico made of money man in house. How can this make financial sense?

Maryland's options suck, pay the $53MM or pursue a legal action to decrease the amount. from a business point of view, both sides do not want everything out in the public, which means that UMD will pay more than $20MM and the ACC will accept less than $53MM. The only issue is where the two meet. I think the ACC has less on the line and can hold out for more so the settlement will be closer to $53MM than $20MM.
 
Maryland's options suck, pay the $53MM or pursue a legal action to decrease the amount. from a business point of view, both sides do not want everything out in the public, which means that UMD will pay more than $20MM and the ACC will accept less than $53MM. The only issue is where the two meet. I think the ACC has less on the line and can hold out for more so the settlement will be closer to $53MM than $20MM.

Having nailed SU's actual Big East exit fee to, I think, the dollar - I'm going to call this one at $39M.
 
If you owe $ to the University of Maryland and you are a state resident, they pull it from your state tax return, no questions asked. Which I'm fine with. But it makes this story ironic, and funny. Hope the ACC ties this up as long as possible.
 
Making the point on the exit fee means less now that we have the GOR. It is now less important to the ACC than it is to UM.
 
The argument is very weak since the University of Maryland signed an agreement with the Big Ten Conference. So while they haven't given notice to the ACC their public actions are different. Maryland will lose the lawsuit on these grounds the only chance Maryland has to win is on procedural grounds. If it is proven Swofford didn't send the change in bylaws 15 days before the vote on the increased exit fee from 20 million to 52 million then Maryland will argue the change didn't follow proper procedure and shouldn't be binding. However, we won't know if the ACC followed proper procedure until their response is made public and we can see if they followed their own bylaws to amend the exit fee.


I think Maryland left themselves a back-door way back into the ACC if they can't defeat the $52M exit fee before the deadline for filing the paperwork with the ACC in order to move to the Big 10. I still say this is not 100% a done deal, and personally, I would prefer Maryland back in the ACC to lock up that part of the recruiting territory, and keep what I consider an important potential rival.
 
I think Maryland left themselves a back-door way back into the ACC if they can't defeat the $52M exit fee before the deadline for filing the paperwork with the ACC in order to move to the Big 10. I still say this is not 100% a done deal, and personally, I would prefer Maryland back in the ACC to lock up that part of the recruiting territory, and keep what I consider an important potential rival.
What would be awesome is if Maryland limps back to the ACC, and the Big 10 ends up having to keep that traveshamockery Rutgers.
 
What would be awesome is if Maryland limps back to the ACC, and the Big 10 ends up having to keep that traveshamockery Rutgers.

It would also wound Jim Delaney badly. I like that idea.
 
What would be awesome is if Maryland limps back to the ACC, and the Big 10 ends up having to keep that traveshamockery Rutgers.
If that happens, I don't see the B1G taking Rutgers.

Can you imagine???
 
If that happens, I don't see the B1G taking Rutgers.

Can you imagine???
Our friends in Storrs are ready to accept a B1G offer if they need a Maryland replacement.
 
What would be awesome is if Maryland limps back to the ACC, and the Big 10 ends up having to keep that traveshamockery Rutgers.

No give backs when it comes to the Girls. They are now the wet toilet paper that won't unstick from the BiG's shoe.
 
No give backs when it comes to the Girls. They are now the wet toilet paper that won't unstick from the BiG's shoe.
By "wet toilet paper", do you mean dog poop?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
169,404
Messages
4,830,447
Members
5,974
Latest member
sturner5150

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
1,171
Total visitors
1,248


...
Top Bottom