The Civil War is OVER

michaeljordan_fan said:
You're talking about fairness. I'm talking about reality.
Click to expand...

Dude. I'm talking reality. Oregon and Washington are desperate for cash flow since they're only getting $30 million from the Big 10 until 2029/2030.

Did you see USC/UCLA fighting fighting Kliavkoff? No, because they'll be getting full Big 10 distribution. It's a push for them.

If I'm the atty's for Washington St and Oregon St I ask the court the same question I ask you.

"Present evidence that you disagreed with Kliavkoff's ruling to remove USC and UCLA's Board Representatives, and to punish them by withholding some of their distributions."

Oregon and Washington were fine with Kliavkoff's ruling because it was going to benefit them economically. They were going to be the partial recipient of USC and UCLA's forfeited shares.

They're only against it a year later because they'll also be punished economically.
 
Last edited:
Red_Alert said:
Dude. I'm talking reality. Oregon and Washington are desperate for cash flow since they're only getting $30 million from the Big 10 until 2029/2030.

Did you see USC/UCLA fighting fighting Kliavkoff? No, because they'll be getting full Big 10 distribution. It's a push for them.

If I'm the atty's for Washington St and Oregon St I ask the court the same question I ask you.

"Present evidence that you disagreed with Kliavkoff's ruling to remove USC and UCLA's Board Representatives, and to punish them by withholding some of their distributions."

Oregon and Washington were fine with Kliavkoff's ruling because it was going to benefit them economically. They were going to be the partial recipient of USC and UCLA's forfeited shares.

They're only against it a year later because they'll also be punished economically.
Click to expand...

Sure. And there's nothing illegal about that.
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
Sure. And there's nothing illegal about that.
Click to expand...

Who the hell said there was anything "illegal" in a civil action?

Oregon and Washington can file all the complaints they want. It doesn't take away from the fact they were complacent with Kliavkoff's administrative and economic punishments when they only applied to USC and UCLA. LOL
 
Red_Alert said:
Who the hell said there was anything "illegal" in a civil action?

Oregon and Washington can file all the complaints they want. It doesn't take away from the fact they were complacent with Kliavkoff's administrative and economic punishments when they only applied to USC and UCLA. LOL
Click to expand...

If your complaint does not allege that any part of contract law was violated...then you are wasting the court's time.
 
Red_Alert said:
Who the hell said there was anything "illegal" in a civil action?

Oregon and Washington can file all the complaints they want. It doesn't take away from the fact they were complacent with Kliavkoff's administrative and economic punishments when they only applied to USC and UCLA. LOL
Click to expand...

Also, you may want to find a dictionary so you can use the correct vocabulary next time.
 
LOL@ an Oregon football rivalry
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
Also, you may want to find a dictionary so you can use the correct vocabulary next time.
Click to expand...

You idiot.

To be complacent means you don't need to do anything about a situation.

When Oregon and Washington were stuck in the PAC, they were fine with the commissioner removing USC and UCLA's board reps and withholding some or all of their distributions..... Until they themselves got out and now they aren't.
 
michaeljordan_fan said:
If your complaint does not allege that any part of contract law was violated...then you are wasting the court's time.
Click to expand...

LOL, Eh?

So y'all "are wasting the court's time".

Because Washington St and Oregon St indeed "allege that part of the contract was violated".

"3. The Bylaws also specify the consequence of delivering an early notice of withdrawal. The Bylaws state that if a member delivers “notice of withdrawal” prior to August 1, 2024, “the member’s representative to the Pac-12 Board of Directors automatically shall cease to be a member of the Pac-12 Board of Directors and shall cease to have the right to vote on any matter before the Pac-12 Board of Directors.” This “automatic” elimination of the departing member’s Board seat and termination of its right to vote on Board matters is not only dictated by the clear and unambiguous language of the Bylaws; it is also compelled by basic principles of conflict of interest. A member that has announced that it is leaving the Conference to join a competing conference cannot be expected to make decisions in the best interest of the Pac-12.
4. Consistent with the Bylaws, after USC and UCLA gave notice that they would withdraw from the Pac-12 in 2024 to join the Big Ten, their representatives were automatically removed from the Pac-12 Board of Directors, and they were no longer allowed to participate in Board meetings or to vote on Board matters."

Kliakoff indeed immediately removed USC and UCLA Board Representatives and they've now missed out on some 24 PAC board meetings. He also stated that he was going to withhold portions of their distributions to be split among the remaining 10 PAC members.

Kliakoff (knowing he's headed for the unemployment line) is now changing his tune. The problem with that is......

1) His prior practice.
2) None of the other 8 members (now departing) took issue with his prior practice until said By-Law applied to them as well.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top