• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your WyoNation.com experience today!

Closed Door BOT Discussion

OrediggerPoke said:
Yuck. They add very little value. Basketball and other sport Facilities are no where close to NMSU and UTEP.
Click to expand...
Fair enough but bball will be comically bad.

Wild theory I heard on talk radio this morning. All 6 remaining join aac to form western division with Rice, utsa, Tulsa, and north TX. I doubt it happens but gotta give them credit. Didn't hear or think of that lol
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
Fair enough but bball will be comically bad.

Wild theory I heard on talk radio this morning. All 6 remaining join aac to form western division with Rice, utsa, Tulsa, and north TX. I doubt it happens but gotta give them credit. Didn't hear or think of that lol
Click to expand...
Not until after those exit fees are collected. Makes little sense to do that now.
 
Agreed. The most critical thing at this point is to unite and ensure the PAC can’t weasel out of the money owed. The MW has to survive in some fashion.
 
In short, two of the five remaining Mountain West members — Wyoming, Hawaii, San Jose State, Nevada and New Mexico — would have to vote in support of dissolution.


The question looms: Would the Pac-12 invite two of them to avoid what amounts to more than $120 million in exit and penalty fees?

“That’s the play, honestly,” says one athletic director with knowledge of the situation.

Such a move is bold. A dissolution of a league means shuttering the conference office, the elimination of dozens of staff members and the disappearance of the league brand itself.

MSN

www.msn.com
 
Itsux2beaewe said:
In short, two of the five remaining Mountain West members — Wyoming, Hawaii, San Jose State, Nevada and New Mexico — would have to vote in support of dissolution.


The question looms: Would the Pac-12 invite two of them to avoid what amounts to more than $120 million in exit and penalty fees?

“That’s the play, honestly,” says one athletic director with knowledge of the situation.

Such a move is bold. A dissolution of a league means shuttering the conference office, the elimination of dozens of staff members and the disappearance of the league brand itself.

MSN

www.msn.com
Click to expand...
That’s wrong and lazy analysis by this journalist. Dissolution requires 6 of the 7 members who have not accepted PAC invites. Bylaws clearly state members who have announced departure have no vote and need 75 percent of voting members.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
That’s wrong and lazy analysis by this journalist. Dissolution requires 6 of the 7 members who have not accepted PAC invites. Bylaws clearly state members who have announced departure have no vote and need 75 percent of voting members.
Click to expand...
This is the part that was most insightful and what I believe the PAC, and frankly our former conference “mates” are working towards.

The question looms: Would the Pac-12 invite two of them to avoid what amounts to more than $120 million in exit and penalty fees?

“That’s the play, honestly,” says one athletic director with knowledge of the situation.
 
Itsux2beaewe said:
This is the part that was most insightful and what I believe the PAC, and frankly our former conference “mates” are working towards.

The question looms: Would the Pac-12 invite two of them to avoid what amounts to more than $120 million in exit and penalty fees?

“That’s the play, honestly,” says one athletic director with knowledge of the situation.
Click to expand...
Working toward that gets them nowhere. The bylaws control. WSU/OSU litigated this very same issue with a nearly identical provision and courts stated WSU/OSU as the members left behind had the only votes on dissolution.
 
Yeah this makes no sense. The parties that left should not have voting rights to dissolve. So even if there is a single team left at the end of the day, it would be in their best interest to rebuild the MW and collect all that cash.

Hopefully something isn’t fucked and these teams have voting rights. It seems like that is what the pac is betting on. Why would you pay out 200 million dollars just to get rid of Wyoming, sjsu and Hawaii (or some combination of 3 leftovers).
 
Here's the applicable language in the Bylaws

1.03 Voting Rights of Members. Each Member Institution shall be entitled to appoint one (1) director to
the Board of Directors in accordance with Section 2.03. Member Institutions shall be entitled to vote with
respect to the dissolution of the Corporation pursuant to C.R.S. § 7-134-102. The affirmative vote of three-
fourths (3/4) of the Member Institutions shall be required to dissolve the Conference. Member
Institutions shall have no other voting rights

And from CRS 7-134-102:

The board of directors shall recommend the proposal to dissolve to the members entitled to vote thereon unless the board of directors determines that, because of conflict of interest or other special circumstances, it should make no recommendation and communicates the basis for its determination to the members;

I would assume leaving for a competing conference and trying to eliminate exit fees would be a conflict of interest. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's similar language as to what got OSU and WSU the war chest and the PAC wasn't dissolved.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
Working toward that gets them nowhere. The bylaws control. WSU/OSU litigated this very same issue with a nearly identical provision and courts stated WSU/OSU as the members left behind had the only votes on dissolution.
Click to expand...
if you believe the same folks that are in charge are capable of navigating it, The MW Comish and the likes of Burman. I’m not sure I hold that view. They didn’t see any of this coming.

Here’s another good article.

www.espn.com

'We had no sense this was coming': Inside the Pac-12's four-team expansion

From 12 to 2 to 6 schools and counting, here's how the foremost western conference stayed alive.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
PokeNer said:
Here's the applicable language in the Bylaws

1.03 Voting Rights of Members. Each Member Institution shall be entitled to appoint one (1) director to
the Board of Directors in accordance with Section 2.03. Member Institutions shall be entitled to vote with
respect to the dissolution of the Corporation pursuant to C.R.S. § 7-134-102. The affirmative vote of three-
fourths (3/4) of the Member Institutions shall be required to dissolve the Conference. Member
Institutions shall have no other voting rights

And from CRS 7-134-102:

The board of directors shall recommend the proposal to dissolve to the members entitled to vote thereon unless the board of directors determines that, because of conflict of interest or other special circumstances, it should make no recommendation and communicates the basis for its determination to the members;

I would assume leaving for a competing conference and trying to eliminate exit fees would be a conflict of interest. Maybe I'm mistaken, but that's similar language as to what got OSU and WSU the war chest and the PAC wasn't dissolved.
Click to expand...
It’s nearly identical language. I can’t see any court holding that the exiting members have a vote. This is what WSU/OSU won decisively in their injunction filing when they were faced with the same exact scenario from the imploding PAC.
 
Itsux2beaewe said:
if you believe the same folks that are in charge are capable of navigating it, The MW Comish and the likes of Burman. I’m not sure I hold that view. They didn’t see any of this coming.

Here’s another good article.

www.espn.com

'We had no sense this was coming': Inside the Pac-12's four-team expansion

From 12 to 2 to 6 schools and counting, here's how the foremost western conference stayed alive.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Click to expand...
What? I’m saying I can read and apply basic legal principles applicable to dissolution despite having potentially poor leadership. Wyoming has a general counsel’s office. The MWC also has legal support. Burman doesn’t make legal determinations.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
It’s nearly identical language. I can’t see any court holding that the exiting members have a vote. This is what WSU/OSU won decisively in their injunction filing when they were faced with the same exact scenario from the imploding PAC.
Click to expand...
I think the question is so do you need 2 of 5 remaining like the article and AD says?
 
ragtimejoe1 said:
I think the question is so do you need 2 of 5 remaining like the article and AD says?
Click to expand...
That a simple answer to me reading the bylaws. It requires a ‘vote’ of 3/4 of member institutions. The only member institutions entitled to ‘vote’ are ones without conflict (ie no announcement to join a separate conference).

Right now there are only 7 potential votes requiring 6 of 7 to exceed 3/4 threshold.

It’s not even difficult language construction IMO.
 
The confusing part about the language is that the Board of Directors determines whether there is a conflict of interest. If the exiting teams are still on the board until they officially notify the conference of their exit, then they most certainly aren't going to vote that they have a conflict.
 
OrediggerPoke said:
That a simple answer to me reading the bylaws. It requires a ‘vote’ of 3/4 of member institutions. The only member institutions entitled to ‘vote’ are ones without conflict (ie no announcement to join a separate conference).

Right now there are only 7 potential votes requiring 6 of 7 to exceed 3/4 threshold.

It’s not even difficult language construction IMO.
Click to expand...
6 votes? Wyoming, AF, UNLV, Nevada, New Mexico, SJSU. I was under the impression Hawaii has no vote since they are not a full member due to football only status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top