Jump to content

derpyhorndog

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    836
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by derpyhorndog

  1. Y’all are fucking depressing.
  2. Section 3.3 Notice Date and Interim Period. The “Notice Date” of the Withdrawal shall be the date of the occurrence of the event that causes the Withdrawal under Section 3.2. Section 3.2 Withdrawing Member. A Member: (i) may Withdraw if it gives notice of the intent to Withdraw from the Conference; or (ii) shall be deemed to have Withdrawn if a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors by affirmative vote determines that such Member: (A) makes statements or takes actions that are determined by a Supermajority of Disinterested Directors to evidence the intent of such Member to withdraw from the Conference either currently or in the future . . . (C) if a third party offers to, or attempts to induce a Member to, leave the Conference, and the Member does not immediately and unconditionally reject that offer. @nunna yo bizness is correct in that UT has not given formal notice of intent to Withdraw, so UT has not directly Withdrawn under Section 3.2(i). So, we are in the Section 3.2(ii) universe. @Hurtlocker gets halfway there. UT has obviously taken actions covered in (ii)(A) and (ii)(C), but for a Withdrawal to be deemed to have occurred under (ii), the Board must have held a formal vote making that determination. The "word getting out" is not enough. We don't know whether that sort of vote actually happened. But if it did, the date of the vote would be have been the "Notice Date." But what if you're a bad-tempered, unfriendly corporate lawyer that loves UT football and discussing it with other like-minded assholes? I got nowhere else to go!
  3. This fast food sandwich is right, guys. Time to shut it down. No more QB talk.
  4. Anyone know whether Hall ever had any UT-related stuff in his Twitter or Instagram bio(s)? If so, it gone.
  5. Probably not alone in thinking he’s the most badass aggy I’ve encountered. Had a class at the very end of his UT tenure and he was still sharp as hell.
  6. Think you're missing the point @statsman was trying to make but, regardless, think it's a moot point because on further review of the bylaws it looks like UT/OU doing what was suggested in his hypo would increase the amount of any exit buyout. Specifically, I would have to think them declining to play any scheduled game would result in "the Conference’s telecast partners [being] unable to produce and telecast games of [UT or OU] during the then-remaining term of the Grant of Rights Agreement or the Conference is unable to realize the revenues relating to those games from its telecast partners."
  7. If that's the case, the point I was making remains. That, whatever the circumstance may have been, UT/OU did not vote in favor of admitting the G5 adds, so that would not be a basis of conflict for UT/OU now taking the position that they did not agree to host or visit those schools once they're on the 2023+ schedules.
  8. Per the B12, it was unanimously approved by the eight remaining members. If UT and OU both voted yes, why not just say unanimously approved? Their careful phrasing is a very strong indication that UT/OU either voted no or were blocked from the vote, IMO.
  9. Below is the best response so far. Which of you surly assholes is Bill?
  10. Just reviewed the B12 bylaws and public announcements around the vote approving Cincinnati, UH, BYU and UCF as new members. Interestingly, UT and OU don't have any veto right over admission of any new B12 members. That is, even together, they don't have the votes to block admitting members. Which is unfortunate because, if they did, they might have been able to leverage it during the G5 raid (or any future P12 raid) to get a better exit deal. Unless you're interested in the legal minutiae, feel free to stop reading at this point. In this B12 statement, it was announced that admission of the G5 teams was "unanimously approved by the eight continuing members" under Section 1.5.2.b.3 of the B12 bylaws. That Section requires approval of a "Supermajority of Disinterested Directors," meaning 75% of the Board of Directors (on which each member has one rep). Assuming all 10 member schools were considered "disinterested" with respect to the G5 admission vote, that means 8 votes required (i.e., no UT/OU vote needed). And, going forward, approving the approving admission of any additional members (e.g., P12 schools) would require 11/14 — again, no UT/OU vote needed. So, the only scenario where I see the possibility of UT/OU leveraging their votes to get a better exit would one where the B12 wants to add additional member(s) and at least two of the Irate Eight schools have been poached by another conference (such that they would be willing to vote with UT/OU in vetoing the new members). Obviously an extremely unlikely scenario. Finally, even if that scenario existed, it could be further complicated if the remaining B12 members took the position that UT/OU and their defector friends were "interested" in the admissions vote (basically, they have a unique interest that would cloud their objectivity in voting) such that they would be blocked from voting. I actually expect that this might have already happened to UT/OU in the G5 vote given the careful wording of the B12 statement mentioned above.
  11. DrunkSumlinSPPPPAAAAVVVVV.gif
  12. Since class average is one of their favorite talking points, surely they will now acknowledge that UT's is higher than A&M's on every site.
  13. Jimbo = Turkish (Snatch character indebted to Bricktop); ATM NIL boosters = Bricktop (character who feeds people that cross him to pigs). Yes, I did have to Google this.
  14. That's cool and all, but I have no idea what game you're referring to. There was one in 2018 that was pretty great.
  15. He started off strong with the "druthers" drop and Snatch reference but lost steam going into the home stretch. Yeah...no way I'm typing those words into the magic toaster while connected to work internet.
  16. Appreciate the response. Staggering Naivete would be a solid band name.
  17. If rumors are true, supposedly one of the driving forces for Kelly leaving was that Notre Dame was unwilling to pony up the cash for an assistant coach budget that was comparable to the pool that other elites had to work with. Result being frequent poaching (money whipping) of promising ND assistants for what would otherwise be lateral moves, hamstringing the program's potential. Believe it was also a rumored issue even before Kelly regime. ND being a private makes it difficult to verify.
  18. @closetojumping, I agree with the sentiment in that I certainly want the best players on the field no matter what, but your last couple posts teeter on the edge of the type of program micromanaging that has often been the subject of ridicule in the past. It's often cited as a lingering issue holding the program back and dissuading potential coaching hires. Outsider expectations (by that I mean really anyone outside the locker room, boosters included) on personnel decisions and timing for them being made. General entitlement to being appeased stemming from outsiders' status as a donor or having some other position of influence. IMO, a guy was hired to lead the program in the locker and film rooms and on the field. His and the outsiders' interests are fully aligned in maximizing the program's potential, ultimate goals being wins on the field - in turn, he keeps his job. Give him all the ancillary tools needed to excel (facilities, NIL, etc.), but ultimately trust your CEO to execute his plan to achieve that ultimate goal, or, if you don't, push him out the plane with his golden chute. What you're describing seems like one where trust in the CEO is lacking but he is kept around and micromanaged/influenced to fill the void. Losing formula. Just my opinion. Fully expecting to be insulted using some words I'll have to Google.
×
×
  • Create New...