This information is via WaPo's Alex Prewitt who covers Maryland.
Maryland files a $157 million counterclaim vs. ACC. Alleges Wake Forest/Pittsburgh officials tried to recruit unnamed B1G schools to leave.— Alex Prewitt (@alex_prewitt) January 14, 2014
And the ACC tried to poach Big Ten schools, plural... PSU seems obvious, but which school is the logical choice after that?
Alleges that b/c of "counsel and direction...received from ESPN," the ACC has tried to lure other schools "to extract more lucrative terms."— Alex Prewitt (@alex_prewitt) January 14, 2014
Oh, that seems familiar. Remember what BC AD Gene DeFilippo said back in 2011 following the ACC adding Pitt and Syracuse: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/10/bosto....
"We always keep our television partners close to us,'' he said. "You don't get extra money for basketball. It's 85% football money. TV - ESPN - is the one who told us what to do. This was football; it had nothing to do with basketball.''
Watching this lawsuit play out will be fun.
Comments
I must be missing something, why would WF and Pitt trying to poach B1G school have any bearing on MD breaking their contract with the ACC or why would MD have any right to damages because of that?
Can something translate this? I just don't see how this is a legitimate lawsuit.
I am not a lawyer, but come from a family of them. And was close to being one. But I'll take a stab at it.
ACC is claiming breach of contract by MD which means they should pay the $50 million fee. There are multiple claims within that breach. One being that MD had agreed to keep the existing ACC intact as per the agreement of all schools. Another being that MD would be adverse to any approach from the other power conferences, the BIG obviously being one. Finally, there is the tacit countersuit upon damages alone.
Argument 1, Breach: ACC is suing MD for breach of the members agreement to keep ACC intact, when in fact the ACC itself was seeking to change the ACC. You may be asking yourself: But bringing in BIG schools would have been good for MD right? Sure, but this is not the legal point. The point is that ACC sought itself to NOT keep the current ACC intact, therefore why should MD be held to that same claim?
Argument 2, Disclosure: MD, and all member universities, that signed on to the new ACC agreement also agreed that any approaches would be disclosed to the ACC. By all accounts MD kept the BIG offer quiet. Therefore MD can claim that the ACC was also in breach of this clause as it also approached universities without full disclosure.
Argument 3, Damages: Having breached both above arguments thereby showing the ACC as predatory and defunct in following its own contractual terms for it's members, and having since sued MD for $50 million breach of contract which in turn has cost legal fees, time required to stay in ACC and not transfer to BIG straight away, legal fees, damages to reputation, etc, etc (lawyers will find damages EVERYWHERE); MD counter sues for an even larger amount.
Question:
How is adding teams not keeping the conference intact? It's not shrinking or, worse, disestablishing. The ACC was seeking to fortify its position, much like they did with the 2004-05 expansion.
Spirit of the law vs letter of the law. You are correct. It is trying to strengthen the ACC by adding teams. However, the core of ACC's case against MD is based on a breach of agreement that all universities made with the conference to not "cause change". The Exit Fee would be classified as the deterrent measure to change, not simply a penalty of leaving. Therefore ANY change positive or negative could be deemed a breach. That's what the lawyers will argue for and against, and what the judge will ultimately have to determine
MD, and it's a bit of stretch, is simply arguing the letter of the law: They did it so why can't we? And if we have to pay so do they!
Does the changing the conference mean Louisville? Because even though they reached out to other B1G schools none of them are actually joining, so technically there is actually no change? Where as Maryland IS leaving therefore change? I don't know, but does the actual change matter when looking at it as letter of law?
I believe the recent additions (Louisville, Pitt, Syracuse, ND) were all disclosed and voted on by member universities, and with Louisville this was a causality of MD leaving to which the ACC could not be held accountable for.
What you are talking about regarding the fact that none of the BIG schools actually changed again is outside the letter of the law, as you say in your last question. It doesn't matter if any university even picked up the phone really. If the ACC orchestrated even any attempt at change it could still be considered a breach, which is exactly what MD is being sued for.
Again, at this point I think MD's case is a stretch and IMO it will ultimately come down to the judge's personal bias toward trust/anti-trust judgments. If he/she believes that ACC as the parent organization should be held to the same letter to which it holds it's members than they could find for MD, provided the evidence is strong and clear. If the judge believes that the ACC as the parent holds the right to negotiate for the financial well being of its members in a manner that holds them above the letter in which they hold its members, then the ACC will win even with strong evidence. The problem is there are previous judgments both ways.
While I haven't seen the case, Maryland is probably arguing a retaliation action is being taken by ACC representatives to reduce the financial well being of their future destination by trying to get B1G schools to depart their conference, due to the ongoing legal dispute between the ACC and Maryland. They would be trying to prove that its because Maryland is leaving the way it is is the primary reason the ACC would try to get one of these schools.
How they came up with the $157 million number, no idea
Maryland is probably hoping to tie the ACC up in court to the point that both parties eventually decide to walk away.....and the Lawyers win regardless
this is a good point, but would constitute a separate case altogether as it doesn't fall within the original context of ACC's claim against MD. (I could be wrong) As a counterclaim it must be within the context of the original suit.
Also I would think that BIG as a conference would file this particular suit and not MD, or at least not just MD.
Rumor is the two universities contacted were Penn State & Northwestern. I can see Penn State, but Northwestern? Why?
Chicago market? I'm sure Duke/Wake/Miami/BC would like also a little more balance in the public/private schools.
because #GOACC
when i read the tweet that wake was involved i thought to myself, 'who's wake talking to? northwestern?'
#goacc indeed
That way they can have a natural rivalry with..... Louisville?
Notre Dame (non-football sports), since Northwestern football is barely a blip on the radar again. Also, South Bend is about as close as you can get to Chicago without being in Chicagoland.
Anybody else think this suit is just going to get tossed? It was already tossed in Maryland.
Which suit? The original claim against Maryland? or the new countersuit?
The original suit was filed by the ACC in North Carolina, Maryland tried to argue that because most of the parties involved and actions taken were in Maryland that it should have been filed in Maryland. The judge deemed that the case should be heard in NC because that's where Maryland agreed to the payout fee if it left the conference and its where the ACC is headquartered. I do not see it being tossed.
As for the countersuit, it all depends on how valid the Maryland legal arguments are so until an article summarizes those I don't know what to expect of it (I am not going to find and read the legal filings)
http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/10292759/maryland-terrapins...
According to this article, the suit is along the lines of what I had premised earlier, arguing the ACC is taking a retaliatory action to try to bring Big 10 schools to the ACC because Maryland is going there.
The article also states that the $157 million is just triple the exit fee as they are also arguing that the ACC is violating anti trust laws (which allow for triple damages) by enforcing the exit fee. From the sound of it, they rehashed the old countersuit and sprinkled in the new info about recruiting BIG 10 schools from the case that was already dismissed by a North Carolina court so I would say that its likely that this case will also be thrown out.
(This is just me being all lawyery and not trying to be all pedantic and shit.)
The way I read it is that it's more like what I wrote about being a Breach, in that Maryland is saying that the ACC cannot sue them for the same practice they themselves also did.
which is different than what you had originally premised in that you postured that it was a retaliation to reduce the financial well being of it's destination conference.
As I said in my first post, "The point is that ACC sought itself to NOT keep the current ACC intact, therefore why should MD be held to that same claim?"
I do agree that it seems like a rehash of their original counterclaim that was thrown out, but if they can prove that the ACC did in fact instruct school officials to do this then it could have some legs.
This was the line from the article that leaned me towards retaliation.
Either way, its probably going to get dragged on for years and when its all said and done the legal teams for both parties will probably benefit more than the "winner"
LET'S HEAR IT FOR THE LAWYERS AND OUR FLAWLESS LITIGATION SYSTEM!!! HOORAY!!! =D
Dammit this is Amuricah, suing people for hypocritical reasons is what we were founded on. Is UMD going to sue Oregon next for having a major donor that owns a clothing and apparel company?
Erspect authoritah!
And this is why no one likes you Maryland...
Its Carolina that noone likes and if they can find a legal strategy around the payout we'll see at least a couple other schools bolt this Carolina based league.
If we (the ACC) had television revenue worth a damn, the ACC wouldn't be in such a weak position.
Nice to see the arse clowns getting it handed to them in hoops on tobacco road. They have demolished the ACC competitiveness in basketball and set it back in football. We need some anti statues that we can all spit, throw feces, fruit and such on. Make it a part of the walk.
They went one step further now beyond the payout to keep schools in place. All ACC schools sans Maryland (Including Louisville) have signed over their media rights to the ACC through the 2027 season, so even if they leave, their new conference wouldn't have the right to broadcast their games, effectively removing the incentive to come get the teams in the first place.
UNC this year is something of a dichotomy, they are 3-1 against ranked teams and dreadful against everyone else. It is nice to see them suffer a bit especially when they escaped basically unscathed from the academic scandal.
Amazing. Seems that they put the big pay out together and the media rights thing on the basis of an agreement where they got everyone together and all signed a deal that said we'll figure out what the exit fees look like later, but we'll sign this agreement now.
I am no lawyer but I have no idea how that constitutes a like exchange which I though you needed for an agreement. And then the magnitudes involved seem to bear no relation to something exchanged. I hereby promise to F myself if we don't stay together. Fing myself is pretty huge in magnitude but what do I get in exchange? Evidently a sh***y deal in relation to the B1G and SEC going deals.
Anyone having anything to do with that agreement should be waterboarded and worse then after they've publicly pronounced their grievous individual errors / or testified how they were bribed by Tarheels... fired.
We got nothing in exchange for saying we would chop off an arm and a leg if we decide to leave for greener pastures. Its absolutely beyond belief to me how someone would let this happen. I also don't think taxpayers who might be on the hook for this crap would have to pay because there are rules as to who can commit a public institution to what magnitude of liability. UGGGGH... pi**es me off.
The schools all signed because they got instant conference stability. We're all-in ACC for now.
Looks like you picked the wrong week to quit smoking.
I have a feeling that there's going to be a huge legal battle of the "Grant of Rights" in a few years. Someone's going to want to leave and another legal battle will ensue over why the new conference can't televise their games.
I think this accurately describes what's going on here.
C'mon Terps, just get your buddies from the B1G and Under Armour to fork up.
My naivety is going to be showing here like a 50 foot neon marquee, but...wouldn't a sensible judge see this as an obvious ploy by the Terps to tie this up in court and get out of the exit fee, and then just tell them to shut up and pay it? How can they possibly prove any of their accusations?
MD's goal is to be such a pain to the ACC that they work out a deal on the buyout just to be done with it all.
I second what is said about UMD trying to be a PITA and hopes to get out with a deal. The only point that's really contentious in looking over most of UMD's arguments so far is what level of exit fee is Economically viable vs Economically Prohibitive. They are going to try to prove that by raising the Fee from $20 million to $50 million, the ACC effectively made it not economically feasible for a university to actually remove itself. UMD did vote against the upgrade to $50 mil when it was put to a vote, but it still passed. They will point to the fact that even before the exit fee, UMD was already in the process of shuttering nine of its varsity sports due to lack of available funding and that the additional $30 million would effectively shutter all but the football and mens basketball programs. UMD would then still have to find two-three women's sports to keep due to Title IX requirements. UMD realistically is hoping the end state is that they get out paying only the $20 million, which they can recoup from membership in the Big 10 in about five years time. The $50 mil would be a backbreaker for about 15 years. The judge will likely dismiss this new countersuit pretty quickly but UMD would then have the right to appeal, etc.
So in the meantime, them going to court about how they're being charged too much money to leave the program is costing them how much money, exactly?
....and the Lawyers are winning.
The Lawyers never lose. Hell, they even manage to win when they're losing.
All I know is that the ACC is holding the Maryland payouts to recoup at least a portion of the 52 million fee. That is partially what the lawsuit is about. The ACC is holding payout money that Maryland earned as part of the ACC while still a member. The ACC argument is that if we give you this money, we will never see it back.
reason number 987 to hate the mess that is College Park, MD
that's this country?
I'd hedge a bet that's probably Moscow, but close enough.
Reminds me of some of the apartment buildings in Kosovo when I was stationed there for peacekeeping missions.
Looks like a shithole to me. Yep, that's definitely College Park, md.
At the base of it- MD signed an agreement to pay $50mm. They are going to have to pay $50mm.
Law trouble? Don't we have Duke? Don't they mint new lawyers - good ones - every year?
And come on, LOLUVA, don't you have a law school? Can't you be good for anything?
They only thing they are good for is a good laugh.
Not true. I hear the have the best Zima in the country. And if you ever need houndstooth clothing, dear lord, is it the place to be. And well, if you believe that you are good for something if you can do any on thing very well, the they are really great at getting their ass kicked by VT football.
The ACC has Duke, UNC, ND and UVA Law. If the ACC asked Georgetown law nicely they'd probably help out just to spite Maryland. The state of Maryland has UMBC.