Jump to content
WCSBoard

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. Fair enough. A little out of context, but that's on me. I totally assume that the courts will assume harm and liability will be determined to fall on both the departing 5 and the Pac 2. You win that one, I said it. It completely doesn't matter. Saying that the court has to first assess liability is like saying what time the court will decide to turn the lights on in the courtroom. Liability is a foregone conclusion. As in "there is some" and it falls with the departing 5 and Pac2. The only thing that matters in all of this is the final $$. That won't be what the MWC has advertised.
  3. Please provide a metes and bounds description of said Blackacre to confirm we’re referring to the same Blackacre.
  4. This is you literally saying “the court will only assess damages.”
  5. No, I didn't say that. I said that the court would be unlikely to assess punitive damages, focusing instead on whether the MWC was harmed and to what extent. To your point, if there is no harm then there is no liability, correct? I've assumed that they can prove harm. The court needs to assign liability for the harm. The question is how much. The departing 5, in their claim, are pretty specific that the MWC has set different levels of harm depending on who is held liable for that harm. Having such a fluid standard dependent on who is liable is very disingenuous. The courts will not allow the MWC to gain more than what makes them whole. The departing 5 contend that the contract with the Pac 2 demonstrates that the MWC considers $55 million to be the number that makes the MWC whole, and therefore the exit fees are punitive and represent a value beyond actual damages. As to who is liable for those actual damages will of course be determined by the court, but it does become irrelevant. If it's the 5, then the 7 will pay it. If it's the 2 then the 7 will pay it. Who cares? The court can determine liability, but in the end the only thing that matters is the damages assigned and the MWC doesn't have much of a case claiming damages from multiple parties for the same harm. Again, don't try to put words in my mouth unless you can post a link quoting me. No, I'm not an attorney but this isn't rocket science either. The MWC will get a favorable liability finding, nobody is even arguing that. How much the award (actually settlement) will amount to is at question.
  6. Hey @halfmanhalfbronco looks like you were wrong yet again….. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/israels-netanyahu-signals-hes-moving-ahead-with-trumps-plan-to-move-palestinians-from-gaza nothing like ethnic cleansing in our name
  7. Oh, I thought they sold widgets there. I’ve been lied to.
  8. According to my contracts professor, it’s a place where they grow endless amounts of fescue
  9. Yea that’s all very interesting, but can you tell me more about Blackacre?
  10. Elon is the government, and he’s here to help….
  11. I fart in your general direction!!!
  12. I used the “bifurcation” word a bunch of pages back. I agree.
  13. For Aggie fan to criticize the refs is hilarious. I see this game as karma for all those teams that regularly get hosed in Logan. Kind of a moot point as the Lobos have shown they’re the better team having beat the Aggies twice this season.
  14. Wait so now we need to look at what actually happened on each play? Because before the numbers were sufficient for you. I’m confused…
  15. What “the MWC is doing”? 2024-2025 revenue hasn’t been distributed yet and won’t be for several months.
  16. In some ways he's a more effective defender than Jaelen. Obviously he's not as blinding fast, but he's longer and has more size to body up smaller guards. UNM's rotation of bigger guards has been the key to this year's defensive success.
  17. I agree let them play but let it be both ways. Last 4 minutes they didn't call as much. Much better watch. Let the bigs be a little physical. Let players make plays. Both teams made plays when that happened. NM made one more.
  18. That was the furthest thing from a flagrant I've ever seen probably not even a foul. Their heads hit on accident. Go watch that again. A little twist with no elbow thrown.
  19. I have waited all year for Washington to have a breakout game. He has played solid lately but this game was a huge step up for him. He is a cat on D and when he can score like he did tonight he is all conference caliber.
  20. Today
  21. Canzano reported in September that Gould had told him the Pac was setting aside $65 million for the rebuild. https://www.johncanzano.com/p/canzano-pac-12-expanding-to-six-members
  22. You made me spit my drink with that lol!
  23. Neither do you.
  24. Well, for one, you say the court will only assess damages. That’s not the case; anyone who has shown up to the first day of law school can tell you that damages is the last thing a court looks at (which was the point I made originally, and which, apparently, only you can’t understand). In fact, in complex cases, most courts bifurcate (separate) the liability phase of the case from damages. So the jury (or judge, if the judge is the fact finder, but in that case they probably don’t bifurcate) doesn’t even hear damages until the plaintiff gets a favorable liability finding.
  25. (Not a flame - serious question) I thought Pac2 had like $50-60M set up for expansion - ?
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...