Exit Penalty

[knapplc]

A bylaw is not a law. It gets fuzzy when you're talking about legally signed contracts, but suffice it to say that the agreement everyone signed isn't 100% binding. There are arguments to be made and it will be up to a judge to decide if the contract was broken and if so, by whom.

 

Ebyl has been raising some good points (+1!) about settling out of court, and that's the way I'm leaning right now. If the Big 12-2 becomes belligerent they could force UNL to take them to court, and I do not think Texas in particular wants that.

 

We'll see.

[HuskerJosh]

So you don't think they can make a strong argument that they would have been that much better off if NU/CU had stayed and won't make as much now? Being better off now doesn't neccesarily mean they wouldn't have been in an even better position. And if you read the conference by-laws, section 3.3 actually stipulates that member institions AGREE THAT the withdrawal would cause financial hardship. I've quoted the pertinant section below .....

 

 

http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdfs/handbook/Bylaws.pdf

 

"3.3 Effect of Withdrawal From Conference Other Than by Giving Proper Notice. If, other than by gvng a proper Notce pursuant to Secton 3.1, a Member Insttuton (a “Breachng Member”) wthdraws, resgns, or otherwse ceases to partcpate as a full Member Insttuton n full complance wth these Rules, or gves notce or otherwse states ts ntent to so wthdraw, resgn, or cease to partcpate n the future (a “Breach”), then the Member Institutions agree that such Breach would cause financial hardship to the remaining Member Institutions of the Conference, and that the financial consequences cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time. Therefore, n recognton of the oblgatons and responsbltes of each Member Insttuton to all other Member Insttutons of the Conference, each Member Insttuton agrees that after such Breach, the amount of Conference revenue that would otherwse have been dstrbuted or dstrbutable to the Breachng Member durng the two (2) years pror to the end of the Current Term or the then-current Addtonal Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by an amount that equals the sum of the aggregate of such revenues tmes the followng percentages (such sum beng the “Aggregate Reducton”); f Notce s receved less than two years but on or before eghteen months pror to the Effectve Date, 70%; if Notice is received less than eighteen months but on or before twelve months prior to the Effective Date, 80%; if Notice is received less than twelve months but on or before six months prior to the Effective Date, 90%; or if Notice is received less than six months prior to the Effective Date, 100%."

 

We've already agreed in a legal contract that leaving withouth following a certain procedure would be a financial hardship to the other schools. The tme in advance of leaving is the issue, not the money the other schools would or wouldn't make. Sorry guys. We're paying the full fee. Section 3.1 basically stipulates a minimum notice of 2 years to avoid the penalty.

 

That language is really pretty irrelevant if it actually does go to court. Boilerplate contracts like this and pretty much anything you sign in your daily life try to cover like a million different scenarios in order to make (in most cases) a company immune from lawsuits or (in this case) an organization able to recover where they wouldn't under existing law. Usually, it's just in there for lawyers to point out in the event some conflict does come up and it goes to court. Most judges will look at it, realize that it's a naked attempt to circumvent the law (you agree there is damage even if there is NO damage) and ignore it. In law school we looked at a waiver of liability for freakin Small Fry basketball and part of the waiver was an agreement to indemnify Small Fry for any losses they incur. You really think a judge would ever enforce that? You can't just look at the language of a contract and assume it's cut and dried.