BCS leagues expanding - yeah?

[dixiehack]

PAC-2 doing unto others.

 

[MileHigh]

Pac-12 files lawsuit against MWC over pricy 'poaching penalty'

 

[micropolitan guy]

Pac-12 files lawsuit against MWC over pricy 'poaching penalty'

I expect this is window dressing for negotiations to lower the departure penalties.

Then again, the Pac-2's legal team destroyed the departing Pac-12 teams in the courtroom last season.

 

[ChrisLong]

College football: Athleticism, pride, pageantry, lawsuits.

 

[MileHigh]

College football: Athleticism, pride, pageantry, lawsuits.

Tradition, greed, bullshirt.

 

[micropolitan guy]

According to some legal "experts" on the OSU fanboi pages, since the Pac-2's contract with the MWC has expired (it was not renewed on Sept. 1), the poaching fees cannot be charged because the contract no longer is in effect.

The exit fees due the MWC, to be paid by the departing members, are still in effect and are not being challenged.

 

[Neutral Corner]

I thought that was the whole point of the Pac not committing to another season with the MWC, that the no poaching agreement had expired and that freed them to recruit other MWC teams without the penalty.

 

[Neutral Corner]

 

[micropolitan guy]

A copy of the pertinent part of the Pac-2's legal brief. I'm not an attorney, maybe someone here who is can weigh in.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

So the Pac 12 is suing because it doesn't like the agreement it signed ten months ago?

Yeah, good luck with that.

 

[franticscribe]

A copy of the pertinent part of the Pac-2's legal brief. I'm not an attorney, maybe someone here who is can weigh in.

I'd like to read the whole thing and have not (quickly) found it. But the arguments they're asserting in this graph are the right kinds of arguments you make to attack an otherwise lawfully signed contract. You would expect them to be plead that way at a bare minimum. So in other words, nothing surprising in this particular excerpt.

 

[micropolitan guy]

So the Pac 12 is suing because it doesn't like the agreement it signed ten months ago?

Yeah, good luck with that.

According to my family legal beagle:

"If it's considered unenforceable in contract law, it doesn't matter if it was signed. It's unenforceable.

"It was signed under duress, while acknowledging that section was unenforceable."

Many a prenup has been voided.

Also, my other legal sources tell me it is essentially a non-compete clause, which is illegal and unenforceable in California.