• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACC filed suit against Maryland?

deacz said:
Right. How likely is it that a court would find it penal if the ACC's members agreed to it under the ACC's governing documents, which therefore bind MD? MD could have left before the $50M went into effect if it really wanted out of the deal. Good luck with that argument.
Click to expand...

Good point. Maryland could have just gone Independent if they didn't like the $50M. Heck, if I'm Swofford, I try to cut a deal and make it $40M if they went ahead and left this summer.
 
I got no problem with MD leaving- I just want them to pay that $50 million so Wake will be able to afford a new coach.
 
Run Wellman has been working Maryland to leave since the vote went through to balance our income statement and save his job.
 
PhDeac said:
Good point. Maryland could have just gone Independent if they didn't like the $50M. Heck, if I'm Swofford, I try to cut a deal and make it $40M if they went ahead and left this summer.
Click to expand...

If precedent is anything, they'd have to pay more to leave early. See, e.g., West Virginia.
 
SM is the one who was local counsel for the Edwards case right? I thought I remembered Duncan being the point guy from Greensboro on that. He's a good guy.
 
Why ask for a jury trial?

Kinda surprising Md calls the buyout "illegal".
 
RHTB&G said:
If precedent is anything, they'd have to pay more to leave early. See, e.g., West Virginia.
Click to expand...

Yeah but they had a place to go. Big Ten can't add you all until 2014, right?
 
silk said:
Why ask for a jury trial?

Kinda surprising Md calls the buyout "illegal".
Click to expand...

Why not ask for a jury trial? Jury of your peers in Greensboro is going to be advantageous to the ACC if it reaches that point.

I believe if the buyout is deemed to be a penalty it's unenforceable.
 
Yes I'm serious. Doubt you are gonna get college sports fans on the jury.

It is a penalty. That is not saying it is illegal.
 
Last edited:
silk said:
Yes I'm serious. Doubt you are gonna get college sports fans on the jury.

It is a penalty. That is not saying it is illegal.
Click to expand...

If what I've been reading is correct, the buyout was intended to be a liquidated damages clause. I was under the impression that if this was the case but the intent was for it to act as a punishment rather than to compensate the parties for the breach of contract/make it unnecessary to go through the penalty estimation down the road, then it could be unenforceable. I don't have any idea what the North Carolina law is for liquidated damage enforcement though.

ETA: Under North Carolina law, a liquidated damages provision is enforceable and will not be considered a penalty where (1) damages are speculative or difficult to ascertain, and (2) the amount stipulated is a reasonable estimate of probable damages or the amount stipulated is reasonably proportionate to the damages actually caused by the breach. Knutton, 273 N.C. 355, 160 S.E.2d at 34.  

I'm sure there are plenty of NC attorneys who can chime in.
 
Last edited:
Wakeforest22890 said:
If what I've been reading is correct, the buyout was intended to be a liquidated damages clause. I was under the impression that if this was the case but the intent was for it to act as a punishment rather than to compensate the parties for the breach of contract/make it unnecessary to go through the penalty estimation down the road, then it could be unenforceable. I don't have any idea what the North Carolina law is for liquidated damage enforcement though.

ETA: Under North Carolina law, a liquidated damages provision is enforceable and will not be considered a penalty where (1) damages are speculative or difficult to ascertain, and (2) the amount stipulated is a reasonable estimate of probable damages or the amount stipulated is reasonably proportionate to the damages actually caused by the breach. Knutton, 273 N.C. 355, 160 S.E.2d at 34.  

I'm sure there are plenty of NC attorneys who can chime in.
Click to expand...
Not an NC attorney but it appears your interpretation is correct.

In talking with my former sports law professor (represents a SEC university's athletic department) the other day and he said he expects a $38 to $42 million settlement range. However, he is basing this on past results and his understanding of the issue thus far.
 
So, has Maryland already refused to pay this penalty? This could be a very interesting case. I can see both sides of the argument.
 
I don't think they've openly said they wouldn't, but they've questioned it publicly so I think the ACC just wanted to snag that advantage of filing suit. Who knows what Maryland has done/said privately though.
 
Dinich was spot on in her blog post on this today (even if not her original thoughts). Very important that the Complaint represents the entire league and was agreed to by even the presidents that would theoretically be interested in leaving.

Per the blog, the suit was also blessed informally by the presidents of Syracuse, Pittsburgh, and Notre Dame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top