The Pac 12 and UW make their case
New Court Filings: Pac 12 wants a bond, UW hints at a compromise.
The latest court documents in the case of WSU/OSU v. Pac-12 are posted.
Below are the documents, preceded by some non-legal comments. I primarily highlight points that were revealed in discovery not previously known to the public, and tidbits I find interesting. For context, I’m not a lawyer, but during my professional career I negotiated several $100 million+ public private partnerships – including a loan to keep the NBA Kings in Sacramento. My training is in public policy, and I’m an alum of Oregon State, USC, and VCU. I served on USC’s faculty teaching graduate level course in public finance and policy development.
First Up: Pac 12’s Argument Against the TRO
The Pac 12 laments that their board did not resolve the difference in opinion as to whether UCLA and USC were still members of the board after they announced in 2022 that they would play in the Big 10 in 2024.
The Pac 12 asks Oregon State to post a bond of $403 million to cover other members for potential damages (assuming OSU and WSU voted to keep all current year revenue from other members). They don’t ask WSU for a bond because they are from exempt from such a demand in Washington.
Hints at compromise: If a restraining order is granted the Pac 12 should be given more options to confer with all members.
Second: UW throws Pac-12 Administrators Under the Bus
UW addresses the incompetence of the Pac 12 administrators – which makes it more interesting than the Pac 12’s arguments.
UW explains in detail how a previous version of the by-laws would have supported WSU/OSU’s arguments, but it was changed, and the current version supports UW’s position that all members still have voting rights. Obviously this is an argument the Pac 12 could not make without admitting their incompetence.
Discovery shows that OSU’s legal counsel doubted that UCLA, USC and Colorado lost their voting rights in real time.
Main concern is that OSU and WSU will take current year revenues from other members – not just future revenues and Pac-12 assets.
Cites California law (where Pac-12 is registered) that allows members, not board members) to dissolve a non-profit organization based on a majority vote.
Claims OSU and WSU should seek legal remedies when they are actually damaged by a vote of Pac-12 members.
Hints at a compromise: suggest ruling could bar OSU and WSU from taking current year revenues from other members.
Wants a pause in proceeding to take to dispute Washington Supreme Court.
Third up: UW President Declaration
UW Presidents says Pac 12 never told her that USC and UCLA were stripped of board seat.
Finally: Exhibits with Discovery (375 Pages)
Lots of juicy stuff here: Note pages where you can find most interesting pieces.
P.323 to 357 OSU exchange exploring ACC interest before August 4th. Suggests surviving this round and poaching Big 12 next round (this is when there was a Pac-9)
p.359: OSU expresses doubt about removing members from board based on announcements.
p.361: WSU & OSU scramble after mass exodus on August 4.
p.366 to 375: Big 12 exploration by OSU between August 26 and September 6. On p. 368 Scott Barnes (OSU AD) indicates his agent was ringleader for expansion activity at Fox.
Next Thursday OSU and WSU will respond with the benefit of discovery from UW.
Will take quite awhile to read through all of this, but thank you (as always) for sharing the actual documents.
I do like this piece:
"Claims OSU and WSU should seek legal remedies when they are actually damaged by a vote of Pac-12 members."
And at the same time, the statement from the 10 teams today claims they need legal intervention because OSU/WSU could possibly harm the other 10 teams by taking part or all of the 2023 revenue. No actual damages, just potential damages.
They claim OSU/WSU would need millions of dollars to pay exit fees for other teams to join a rebuilt Pac12 as evidence that OSU/WSU would take 2023 revenues from the 10 departing teams?
In their exhibit 5, the Athletic article clearly states that the conference can operate as 2 teams for 2 years and then add MW teams, which will have no exit fees at that point in time.